Warren Beatty, Stalker

Warren Beatty and his wife Annette Bening have attempted to shadow Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger through his last several appearances in support of his referenda in California's upcoming special election. Up to now, everyone assumed Beatty had finally decided to pull the trigger and run for governor next year, starting his long-rumored political career after seeing his movie career dry up over the past decade. However, Beatty announced today that he will not run for office next year, creating a lot of confusion among Californians about why he keeps following the Governator everywhere:

Actors Warren Beatty and wife Annette Bening tried to crash a campaign appearance Saturday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor sought to drum up last-minute support for a group of statewide ballot measures. ...

Beatty planned to shadow Schwarzenegger throughout the day as the governor campaigned. He has been repeatedly mentioned as a possible challenger to Schwarzenegger, but he said Saturday that he would not be a candidate in next year's gubernatorial race.

Beatty spent decades in Hollywood as one of the most overrated actors in the history of film. Based on a square jaw and a couple of early successes, Beatty maintained a strong following despite mostly wooden performances, even in the better-known efforts. When cast in roles that fit his own personality, Beatty performed passably well, somewhat like Kevin Costner and Robert Redford. When asked to stretch, his many limitations as an actor became immediately apparent, even in films like Bonnie and Clyde, Heaven Can Wait, and Bugsy, where he substituted making faces for acting. Beatty has always been a movie star; his sister, Shirley MacLaine, is an actor, and the difference between the two on screen shows the gap between the terms.

That normally would point towards a pretty good career in politics, however, and people have awaited Beatty's electoral coming-out party for years. Ronald Reagan and the Governator himself had similar film careers and limitations, and they did quite nicely for themselves. The key difference between these three, however, is that Reagan paid his dues on the speaking circuit for years, developing his emerging conservatism and philosophy through years of meeting and speaking with people about the issues of the day. Schwarzenegger rode a fluke recall election and a compressed political process to a quick and unexpected victory.

Beatty, for his part, appears to want to get drafted before he'll do anything. Instead of actually running for office, he has reduced himself to the role of a stalker, a voyeur of sorts instead of a fully active participant in the referenda debate. It almost seems as if Beatty has drawn close to Arnold in hopes of catching some of the latter's reflected glory. Driving around in a van with the "Truth Squad" logo, trailing Arnold like a puppy dog -- is that really all the Democrats and Beatty himself can find for him to do against the Governator? Perhaps that comes from an inability to work in public without a script -- and the real reason why Beatty has demurred for the 2006 election.

Gray Lady Doesn't Like Democracy

The New York Times editorial board should consider putting its own essays behind the $50 sanity firewall, playing to its elitist core audience rather than the broader sphere of readers that engage in the political process. Today's editorial on referenda exposes Pinch's crew as the worst kind of elitists -- those who believe that American voters cannot be trusted with a democracy at all, but should instead rely on their betters to instruct them on how to behave:

Government by referendum should come with a warning: vote yes at your own risk. Measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiatives are by their nature missing the devil of the details. The questions are designed to be brief, often to the point of being misleading or confusing. When the list is interminable, as it is in some states this year, the overwhelmed voter might be best advised to just say no.

It's a wonder that in California, there hasn't been a proposition against propositions. The poor voters are wrestling with eight questions, thanks to their action-loving governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who scheduled a special election to push through his own pet propositions. Other special interests followed once he had opened the door. Most of the questions involve matters that should be handled by the State Legislature. Voters are being asked, for instance, to choose between two different initiatives on prescription drugs, one sponsored by consumer groups and the other by drug companies, and both fatally flawed.

If Mr. Schwarzenegger thinks that the Legislature has failed to do the right thing when it comes to budgetary matters or teachers' tenure in the public schools, he should be out campaigning for different lawmakers, not asking the public to do their work during a quick trip to the polls. The problem, of course, is that districts are so carefully gerrymandered that they make almost every incumbent invulnerable to public pressure. The one proposition California voters should consider involves the one thing the legislators can never be expected to do for themselves: taking redistricting out of the hands of party power brokers and putting it into the hands of a nonpartisan commission.

Got that? The only time that Californians should get directly involved in creating the rules by which they live is to correct the manner in which their masters hold power. Otherwise, the poor dears shouldn't confuse themselves with so many different issues at one time. Why, this ballot contains eight different measures! Californians can't possibly derive informed and mature positions on that many issues at the same time, can they?

As a California native now living in a non-referenda state, I can assure the bluebloods at the Gray Lady that 30 million people can and often do multi-task when it comes to politics. For some reason, the Times considers this an impossible task -- but at the same time, I see that their RSS feed for the Opinion section today happens to have eight articles on completely different topics. What makes the Op/Ed editor more capable to make value judgments on that many topics each day than Californians making judgments on the same number of issues in an entire election cycle?

The Times apparently has little faith in the wisdom of the electorate. Do referenda sometimes get things wrong? Of course they do, and the Legislature can issue their own corrective action after the fact to fix it. The difference between California and Minnesota, though, is that Californians can directly do the same thing when the Legislature screws up, while Minnesotans cannot. They must wait for the next electoral cycle to pressure their representatives to revisit issues, which only works when voters can get significant seat changes in the election.

Direct democracy allows voters to hold their own check on legislative arrogance. It's telling that the New York Times demeans this power and encourages its abandonment in favor of an entrenched political class that has demonstrably become less accountable to the electorate.

Paris Riots Spread Across France

The rioting that spent a week penned up in immigrant ghettoes around Paris finall broke out across France last night, with the torching of almost a thousand cars overnight. Government indecision and inaction appears to have emboldened the disaffected in France, transforming the riots from an isolated act to a movement with serious implications for the stability of the center of the EU:

Widespread riots across impoverished areas of France took a malevolent turn in a ninth night of violence, with youths torching an ambulance and stoning medical workers coming to the aid of a sick person. Authorities arrested more than 250 people, an unprecedented sweep since the beginning of the unrest.

Bands of youths also burned a nursery school, warehouses and nearly 900 cars overnight as the violence spread from the restive Paris suburbs to towns around France. The U.S. warned Americans against taking trains to the airport through the affected areas. ...

Fires and other incidents were reported in Lille, Toulouse, Rouen and elsewhere on the second night of unrest in areas beyond metropolitan Paris. An incendiary device was tossed at the wall of a synagogue in Pierrefitte, northwest of Paris, where electricity went out after a burning car damaged an electrical pole.

"This is dreadful, unfortunate. Who did this? Against whom?" Naima Mouis, a hospital worker in Suresnes, asked while looking at the hulk of her burned-out car.

One would think the burning synagogue might provide a clue to Mlle. Mouis. The AP and BBC continue to evade the point that these riots started in Muslim neighborhoods among mainly French-born adult children of immigrants, angry at their economic and social status but also increasingly Islamist in temperament. The BBC account fails to even mention the synagogue, but does include aggressive policing towards a certain demographic among the "youths" set of complaints:

The interior minister told police officers on Friday evening that the riots were organised and the key to ending them lay in making arrests.

Many residents say repressive policing has heightened a sense of injustice, with officers systematically stopping and searching young blacks and North Africans in particular, our correspondent says.

Both agencies make the arrest count from last night a particular focus of their reports. The French arrested 250 rioters across the country last night, which sounds impressive -- until readers understand that more than a dozen areas went under the torch just last night alone. That means that the police could only detain less than 20 per incident, and only one rioter for every four cars lit up in the uprising.

The Washington Post takes a bit more honest approach -- but only because it wants to report that Muslims now want to negotiate an end to the riots:

The attacks have underscored anger and frustration among immigrants and their French-born children who inhabit the country's largest and poorest slum areas. A large percentage of this population is Muslim, and Islamic neighborhood groups have been trying to dissuade young people from taking part in the rioting.

Thursday night into Friday morning, the violence spread to other parts of France for the first time. Attacks and fires were reported in Normandy on the northwest coast, Dijon in the central Burgundy region and Provence in the far south.

The attacks were triggered when two Muslim teenagers were electrocuted last week after they leapt into a power substation in an attempt to evade a police who had set up an identity checkpoint. Several dozen policemen and assailants have since been injured in street fighting, but no further deaths have been reported.

In fact, this report by Molly Moore may be the most honest reporting on the riots of any news service publishing accounts of the violence. She includes quotes from French Muslims that acknowledge their community's role in the rioting, decrying the violence and the destruction of their own neighborhoods that have resulted from it. They blame the radicals for degrading their own religion in this orgy of violence across France and warn of long-lasting damage to Muslim standing in France -- which whatever its other faults, has at least traditionally welcomed Muslims until the Islamists started to create problems for French security.

The Islamists, however, understand that they have the momentum and the political will that the French and their government lack. They will not give that up easily, and not without significant concessions. One cannot help but be reminded of the first barbarian sack of Rome at the hands of Alaric, who decreed that the Romans would keep their lives only as long as they refrained from interfering in the pillaging of Alaric's forces until they finished. I wonder what the Islamists will demand from the French for their survival.

Alito Smear #3: The Rock-Ribbed Racist's Candidate

Normally I page through most of the news stories in a day's media output, selecting a handful as interesting and "staging" them in a separate Firefox session before deciding which ones to analyze. Occasionally, however, I find one so offensive and remarkable that I drop everything and start immediately. Thus I came to Colbert King's screed in the Washington Post this morning on his opinion of judicial conservatism/originalism and its proponents. Titled "Credentials Are Fine, but Values Matter, Too," King pulls out the race card with no substantiation whatsoever:

Thus sayeth the high priests of far-right conservatism: To be worthy of appointment to the Supreme Court, a nominee must be scholarly, a great intellect and a possessor of sterling conservative credentials. In addition, the nominee should come equipped with a well-established constitutional philosophy, experience in constitutional law and the ability to divine what the Constitution means through analysis of its words and structure. In addition, they say, the nominee must have a proven ability to write clearly, argue incisively and have well-known opinions on judicial philosophy.

Unspoken, but well understood, is that to be short-listed it certainly doesn't hurt to be white, male and straight.

Says who? Name me one prominent proponent of originalism/conservatism who didn't have Janice Rogers Brown shortlisted for the openings on the court that eventually went to John Roberts and Samuel Alito. I guarantee King that a Brown nomination would have delighted those proponents far more than Roberts did. Perhaps King could answer why Janice Rogers Brown didn't get that nomination. It's because all of his liberal allies in the Senate threatened to Bork her if Bush dared elevate her to the Supreme Court. The same threat applied, by the way, to top conservative shortlisters Priscilla Owen, Edith Hollan Jones, and still applies to Henry Saad for the appellate court.

And King argues that conservatives prefer white males? Puh-leeze. Democrats will not allow the Bush administration to push nominees other than white males onto the Supreme Court because to do so would be to acknowledge that all African-Americans, women, and other demographic groups do not think alike, and in fact have quite a diversity of political thought. Acknowledging that as legitimate undermines the last refuge of the Democtratic scoundrels: herd mentality, as Rep. Albert Wynn put it so well this week in Maryland.

The rest of King's column is ridiculously incoherent. Nowhere does he provide any kind of support for his ludicrous assertion about the motives of conservatives backing the Alito nomination. Instead, he makes an argument that conservatives would have loved the attorney for South Carolina who argued for the losing side in Brown v Board of Education by promoting stare decisis. John Davis' efforts focused on holding to the "superprecedent" of Plessy v Ferguson rather than the plain language of the 14th Amendment, a point that King waves around but obviously remains unaware of the hilarious irony it provokes.

Just which side in today's debates on nominations requires worship of stare decisis? It's not the conservatives, I assure you.

King's point, to the extent that he has one, is that appellate jurists need to have a sense of justice, not just a sense of law. This assertion demonstrates that King has no idea what appellate courts do or their purpose under the law. The presiding court determines the facts in a case; appellate courts only review the application of laws and procedures and the actions of the judge to determine that the determination of fact proceeded fairly and constitutionally, and whether the applicable laws pass constitutional muster. Most cases have juries as fact-finders, but even in those which don't, appellate courts do not lightly substitute their own judgment for that of the presiding jurist.

King also misunderstands the nature of law. If he wants the law and justice to be synonymous, as most of us do, then he needs to press the legislature to write laws in such a manner that allows that. For the most part, our system does that very well, despite the occasional and well-reported failures we see. But even when we fall short, the appellate courts do not exist to act as a superlegislature to create new law based on their feelings about one particular defendant or plaintiff. King faults Robert Bork and John Roberts for not reading the Constitution "generously" in this regard -- but that's a job for the people and their elected representatives, not nine robed masters with lifetime unaccountability.

We have seen what happens when we go down that path, as we have for forty years. The Court takes more and more power to legislate from the people, declaring more and more of their decisions as definitions of absolute "rights" more unassailable than even the First Amendment, and in general starting to act like a Guardian Council who must bless all acts of legislature before enforcement rather than the simple Constitutional check the founders envisioned.

Shame on King for his ad-hoc and completely unfounded attack on conservatives this morning, and shame on his editors for allowing such a ridiculous and unsupported charge to make it to publication.

Would You Like A Coup With That Leak?

[Vox Taciturn, who recently retired from blogging due to family obligations, happily takes me up on my offer to host his guest posts. Vox, a former member of the intelligence community, attempts to connect a few dots in today's post. -- Captain Ed]

Anyone who isn't purposefully and willfully deluding themselves has seen the folly of Plame-gate: The alleged White House-driven plot to seek vengeance against “truth-telling” Joe Wilson. That Joe has been proven to be anything but a truth-teller is beside the point; the neo-cons attacked his wife, the mother of his children, and a dedicated public servant in covert status at the CIA.

That a simple search of public information – something any reporter could have done, something the FBI Special Agents working for Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald surely did, and something any foreign intelligence service would have done had they decided to do business with CIA front Brewster Jennings – would have revealed the woefully inadequate steps Ms. Plame and the CIA were taking to keep her identity and true employer a secret. The balloon floated by anti-administration rogues in the CIA, and carried by their cohorts in mainstream press, was popped when the end result of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth was that maybe someone lied about something that wasn’t a crime.

Intelligence officers are not dummies. They had to know that Plame-gate was too weak to withstand serious scrutiny, so they had to have a backup plan. Speak of the devil and he appears in the form of a story that blows the cover of a covert program of interrogation centers/prisons. Another dastardly deed concocted by the evil doers in the White House who, when they are not beating up women, take their frustrations out on innocent “militants.”

Still think rogue Bush-haters in the CIA aren’t getting reporters who cover the national security beat to carry their water? Let’s go to an impartial source. I don’t have a LexisNexis account so we’ll use Google News to search for the non-issue that is “Valarie Plame”: 21,800 hits. Now a search for the real intelligence related controversy that is “Able Danger”: 72 hits. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that what is known as a blow-out?

Plame, Able Danger, Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Data Mining . . . it is all so confusing to Joe Six-Pack and Molly Homemaker in Peoria . . . why should anyone outside of DC care?

This is how the system is supposed to work: We, the people, elect others to represent our interests. We empower these representatives to build an apparatus necessary to carry out the details of administrating and defending the nation and preserving our way of life. When we get the impression that those who represent us aren’t looking out for our best interests we, the people, through our votes change the representatives. In turn these new representatives of ours change the apparatus that failed the people and their predecessors. The apparatus is supposed to serve as a tool of our representatives and a servant of the people; it is NOT supposed to bypass the people and bring about regime change by itself.

Of course renegade intelligence officers can’t just hold press conferences and air their politically motivated opposition to administration policies, so they leak to willing and able journalists who hold similar political dispositions. See, it is exciting and something to brag about when you talk to a member of the Senior Intelligence Service and can attach your byline to an intelligence-related expose. These comrades with clearances are even willing to provide corroboration to their stories; usually like-minded pals who aren’t on active duty anymore, but who have lucrative consulting gigs from their pals who still run the secret show. No sense in talking to the Gerechts and Baers of the world who might provide a little balance, since they are probably disgruntled (and Republican) anyway.

Offered as further proof that it is the apolitical CIA that has our best interests at heart are stories of the draft-dodging, Zionist-loving, neo-conservative cabal based in the White House that set up its own intelligence apparatus to bypass the efforts of the CIA. The real story is actually the reverse: What is an administration supposed to do when those who are supposed to serve it fight, obstruct, and otherwise don’t deliver?

Conservatives roll their eyes at the “moonbats” who shout about “no blood for oil” and join the ranks of ANSWER, but there is little difference in belief and outlook between the nut-jobs waving signs and their fellow-travelers in the intelligence business; except of course that intelligence officers can actually help bring about change. The CIA made a name for itself destabilizing regimes, only this time the leader of the regime they are aiming to change isn’t named Allende or Pahlavi.

Joe Six-Pack and Molly Homemaker should care about this stuff because even if they didn’t vote for the current administration, I’m fairly sure that voting is how they want such decisions to be made.

All Hands On Deck

Here's a little Friday night fun -- Aaron wants to poll the blogosphere to see which blogs get what cards in his new Deck O' Bloggers. I don't know which card would be appropriate card for a Captain -- maybe the Jack of Spades? Maybe my Buccaneer skin would get me a Diamonds face card. I'll wait and see if I get any votes for either. At any rate, it sounds like good clean blogosphere fun.

Hugh as the King of Hearts? I would have guessed the Ace of (RF Moeller) Diamonds. As for the Queen of Hearts, does anyone know if Juice Newton blogs?

Maryland Democrats Condemn Racism But Not Racists In Party

After the Washington Times exposed Maryland Democrats as willing participants in racist attacks on Michael Steele and other black conservatives, the embarrassment has caused a number of Democrats to publicly eschew such tactics. Unfortunately, they refuse to condemn the people in their party who practice such behavior on behalf of the party, putting them in the awkward position of condemning racism while excusing the racists:

U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin yesterday pledged not to use racially tinged attacks in his campaign for U.S. Senate but stopped short of repudiating fellow Maryland Democrats who have said such tactics are acceptable against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele because he is a black conservative Republican.

"I have never in my entire life brought race into what I do in life, and it is not going to come in now, at this stage," said Mr. Cardin, a 10-term congressman who could face Mr. Steele in the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "I don't think race has any place in this campaign."

Only Rep. Albert Wynn delivered a scolding to his own party, and talked about the real problem with the Democratic attacks on Steele:

"I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat," Mr. Wynn said.

Throwing Oreo cookies and treating Steele as a traitor to his ethnicity reinforces what Wynn describes perfectly as a herd mentality, and it's one that Democrats have only been too happy to promote. They do not want Wynn or anyone else to suggest that African-Americans should think for themselves; they want to sell the notion that all Republicans are bigots regardless of race, and so therefore all tactics used to defeat them should be considered honorable -- as the ends justify the means. Moreover, they want the herd mentality directed by just a select few in order to control the near-lock they have on this particular demographic.

Kudos to Rep. Wynn for even broaching this subject and using this opportunity to remind the Democrats that this strategy demeans his community and will not be acceptable. Perhaps Rep. Wynn will next direct his ire to the racial attacks coming from people like Jesse Jackson, who accused Samuel Alito of being a segregationist and hijacking Rosa Parks' memorial services to do so.

True political freedom will come when the various minority groups quit buying the victimization and latent racialism that the Democrats sell and demand solutions to the issues that face their communities, real solutions and not just the panaceas they've sold like snake oil for the past two generations. Until the African-American community makes the Democrats work for their vote, however, that day will never come.

Liberals Take Body Blow From Gomery

Now that the other Gomery Inquiry shoe has dropped on the Liberal Party, the Canadian electorate has begun to deliver its own verdict on the corruption that rose to the highest levels of government. Fresh polling by the Global National and Ipsos shows that the Liberals have lost seven points almost overnight and that their main rivals, the Tories of the CPC, have picked up four and now find themselves in a virtual dead heat (via Newsbeat1):

While Federal NDP leader Jack Layton flirts with the possibility of pushing a Christmas election, an exclusive Global National/Ipsos Reid poll shows the Liberals taking a heavy beating in popularity, dropping seven per cent since the Gomery Report was released Tuesday. ...

According to the poll national vote support for each major Federal party current sits at:
• 31% for Paul Martin and the Liberals (-7 points)
• 30% for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives (+4 points)
• 19% for Jack Layton and the NDP (+1 point)
• 5% for Jim Harris and the Green Party (unchanged)

A majority of Canadians have, for the first time, decided that the Adscam corruption scandal demonstrates that the Liberals should not control the executive. The Liberals lose on that question by a whopping 16 points, 54%-38%, indicating that the exoneration of Paul Martin in the final Gomery Report has done little to shore up the reputation of the Grits. The Liberals did not face that kind of daunting judgment from the electorate even during the actual testimony in the spring, when Martin barely held onto power by peeling off enough help from the NDP and the disloyal girlfriend of the Tories' deputy leader.

Martin has fought back this week, trying to woo the NDP back into the fold with a new health-care deal. Last spring, Martin coughed up over $5 billion in spending to satisfy Jack Layton's demands for NDP patience in calling for the Gomery report before any new elections. Now, with Layton considering a bold Christmas election, Martin promises to root out supposed corruption in the delivery of medical services to convince Layton to ignore the corruption that perpetuated Liberal rule in Canada:

A crackdown on double dipping by doctors will be part of a proposal by the minority Liberals today to gain the support of the New Democrats to stave off defeat in the House of Commons.

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh is drafting the offer to the NDP as the government tries to survive the fierce political fallout from Justice John Gomery's blockbuster findings on the sponsorship scandal.

Double dipping refers to a practice in which some doctors offer patients the same services in the insured public system or more quickly in private clinics for higher fees. Some medicare advocates have been urging Ottawa to guarantee that the public health system be kept completely separate from privately delivered services. ...

Although the practice of double dipping is not widespread, both Layton and Dosanjh have expressed concern about it and Layton, in his talks with the Liberals, has been demanding a ban on it in the Canada Health Act. Such a provision would head off any future attempts by the provinces to allow it. Dosanjh and New Democrat MP Jean Crowder, the party's health critic, are expected to meet this afternoon to discuss the Liberals' health-care proposals. If the offer meets with Crowder's approval, there will be discussions between Layton and the Prime Minister.

In other words, the Liberals want to buy off Layton with a promise to keep Canadians from accessing medical care through private payments for faster service. They are perfectly willing to throw seriously ill Canadians under a bus to make a slimy deal to keep themselves in power -- and Jack Layton appears willing to accommodate such a bargain, at least for a moment.

Keep your eyes peeled on how this works out. With the numbers falling -- and privately, the Tories think the numbers have underestimated their true support -- this will be the time to give the Liberal government the final push. The CPC and BQ must strike while voter outrage hits its peak, or risk the apathy that so quickly arrived after the testimony that comprised the Gomery Inquiry went public in the spring.

The French Cancer Metastasizes While The Media Diagnoses ADHD

The French riots continued for another night while the Chirac government vacillated on its response. Rather than show signs of petering out, the violence instead spread to nearby towns last night -- and the BBC still can barely bring itself to mention the word "Muslim" in its coverage of the violent uprising:

The violence that has wracked Paris suburbs over the past week has spread to new areas and outside the capital for the first time.

French youths set alight buildings and cars and buses in the eighth consecutive night of rioting.

Cars were torched in the eastern city of Dijon, and sporadic unrest was reported in south and west France.

The violence was triggered by the deaths of two teenagers of African origin.

"Of African origin" means, of course, Muslim, a fact that somehow the BBC thinks remains a secret from its readers. If facts only contained themselves to BBC's limitations as a news service, their readers might remain as benighted as the BBC presumes. The word "Muslim" finally shows up in the final two paragraphs -- when religious leaders speak out on behalf of those committing the violence, rather than condemning it:

Muslim leaders have urged politicians to show respect for immigrant communities.

Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said people in the suburbs "must be given the conditions to live with dignity as human beings", not in "disgraceful squats".

We should at least acknowledge that the BBC worked the fact that the violence has some component of religious conflict in it. The New York Times, which after eight days suddenly discovered that Paris had gone up in flames, misses it entirely. They report that "youths" and "gangs" have suddenly erupted in violence in neighborhoods that have "a large immigrant population from North Africa and the sub-Saharan region." In fact, the words "youth" and "youths" appear five times, not counting the caption for the accompanying photograph, while Craig Smith cannot bring himself to type "Muslim" once.

Even the AP manages to get the story right, at MS-NBC, even if it downplays it:

The rioting has grown into a broader challenge for the French state. It has laid bare discontent simmering in suburbs where immigrants — many of them African Muslims — and their French-born children are trapped by poverty, unemployment, discrimination, crime and poor education and housing.

France’s Muslim population, an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe’s largest. But rather than being embraced as equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children often complain of police harassment and job discrimination.

Over the postwar years, France has locked its immigrants into enclaves and discouraged the immersion of one culture into the other. It built ready-made slums for their guest workers and made sure that their own insular Frenchness could not be penetrated by the people who helped to rebuild their country. The initial wave of workers did not mind the apartheid so much; it still gave them a large improvement in their standard of living, and allowed them to continue their own traditions. The second and third generations expect more, however, and the sense of the economic and social trap that the French created feeds their radicalism, and their turn towards Islamism as an answer.

With an immigrant population of 5 million, Chirac will not see this situation improve any time soon. Only free markets and the creation of new jobs will assuage the economics of the problem. Unfortunately, Islamism will take much more of an effort to root out now that it has taken hold, and as long as people keep thinking that "youth" is at the center of the problem, the sickness will continue to spread. France may see a civil war break out, one that it so far hasn't shown the stomach to fight.

UPDATE: The NYT editorial board provides the religious component that its reporter dares not mention -- but only to scold the French for not being sensitive enough in its approach to immigration:

The rioters torching cars and pelting the police are mainly the sons of African and Arab immigrants, most of them Muslims, who have never been integrated into French society, who work for the lowest wages and who live in ghettos rife with crime. ...

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has ambitions to be president, has not been much help. He called the rioters "scum" and said the answer was zero tolerance of crime. A better answer would involve job opportunities, decent housing and good education for these new citizens.

That would have been the answer a generation ago. It's probably too late for those answers to combat the Islamist momentum that has built itself in the streets of Paris now, and in case the Times hadn't noticed, unemployment has become epidemic throughout France now. With a nationwide jobless rate in the double digits, the problem of "opportunities" doesn't limit itself to the ghettoes.

France has a much wider problem than just the sink estates. It's just that, like any failing economy, the first to feel the effects are those who have the least.

Shaffer Loses His Appeals

Earlier today, I received a message from Mark Zaid, attorney for Able Danger whistleblower Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer. The Defense Intelligence Agency has decided to proceed in revoking Col. Shaffer's clearance, a necessary component for his civilian job at the agency, and will likely terminate his employment. Zaid says:

Ed, in record breaking speed that to me clearly denotes selective retaliatory attention, the DIA's SAB has affirmed the revocation of Tony's security clearance. Unfortunately DIA has seen fit to completely disregard our submissions, and Cong Weldon and Hunters' formal requests to refrain from acting against Tony. This was the final stage of the process. There are no more administrative appeals left with respect to the clearance. A response to the indefinite suspension will be filed tomorrow. I expect that Tony will receive a notice of termination also in record breaking speed. That will take effect no sooner than thirty days from when received.

Since the Judiciary Committee has decided to schedule the Alito hearings in January, that gives them some free time between now and the end of their work sessions to haul the DIA in front of them and demand some answers. Given the old and picayune nature of the infractions that the DIA has used to challenge Shaffer's security clearance, their haste in closing this case strongly suggests that Zaid has it pegged; this termination surely comes as a vindictive ploy to warn other potential Able Danger witnesses not to cooperate with Congress.

That sounds like a terrible message to allow to pass unnoticed by the American public. While we understand the need for secrecy in dealing with some issues about the war on terror, we need to know that we have all the effective assets of intelligence work on line and functioning properly. We need to know exactly what Able Danger found, and what information got passed along and which got blocked by the DIA and Pentagon lawyers. Mostly, though, when the people's representatives demand that a government agency opens its books, it damned well better cooperate.

CQ Joins The Navy ....

... or at least CQ will join the Navy team in the Soldiers Angels new fundraising project, Project VALOUR-IT. This new project aims to purchase laptop computers for wounded veterans when they come home. Hopefully, we will get a new class of milbloggers when this gets completely rolled out. Here's the description from the site:

Currently we are forming "libraries" of laptops equipped with the voice-controlled software for wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines at each major military medical center to check out during their stay. Copies of the voice-controlled software for use on home computers are also available to servicemembers who still need it as they leave the medical center. In special circumstances, a laptop may be provided to a soldier for his or her permanent use.

Each fully equipped laptop will cost an estimated $685 (plus shipping), thanks to retailer discounts. Thus, the first two phases will require an estimated budget of about $110,000. Full implementation will require an estimated budget of $600,000 (click here for specs and estimated/expected costs).

Hope you can help support Project VALOUR-IT. Click on the link below to contribute to this fine effort for the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country.

A Reply From One Republican Vote Against Free Speech

CQ reader Ed C used some personal connections to get a specific response from one of the Republicans that voted against the blogger exemption to the BCRA last night. Todd Platts represents Pennsylvania's CD-19, which includes York and Mechanicsburg, and normally provides a solid center-right vote for the Republicans. Platt's office gave Ed C this response to explain why the normally reliable GOP politician voted against free speech:

I strongly support free speech on the Internet, just as I do on the airwaves and in the public square. Blogs and other Internet communications are an exciting and growing aspect of our democratic system. They provide a forum for debate and a low-cost means of promoting candidates and ideas. At the same time, without the application of any campaign finance restrictions to the Internet (as proposed by H.R. 1606), corporations and unions could improperly funnel undisclosed contributions of exceedingly large sums to parties and candidates in the form of on-line political advertisements.

As the last election cycle demonstrated, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act has been successful in reducing the role of large, undisclosed "soft money" contributions to political parties and candidates without diminishing free speech in any way. As such, I voted against H.R. 1606, which would have undermined the 2002 law by creating a new, potentially huge soft money loophole.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is currently drafting regulations aimed at protecting the free speech rights of bloggers and others using the Internet, while also maintaining the requirement that only "hard money" be used by political parties, corporations, and unions for paid election ads. I believe the development of these regulations should be allowed to proceed. In addition, Representatives Chris Shays and Martin Meehan have introduced legislation (H.R. 4194) which would protect the free speech rights of bloggers without creating a soft money loophole. The House should consider this or similar legislation as an alternative to H.R. 1606.

Platts does put his mouth from where his money comes. Open Secrets notes that Platts almost exclusively accepts only individual contributions to his campaigns. In his last election, 99.4% of his funds came in as "hard money", and the remainder probably came out of his own pocket. He returned a $500 PAC contribution at one point in the last electoral cycle.

I accept that Platts acted out of sincere belief rather than a hope of incumbency protection. Nevertheless, the BCRA hardly could be described as successful in keeping out large sums of money, as Platts implies in his statement. In Congressional races alone, PACs contributed $234 million dollars, an average of more than a half-million in each race. George Soros wrote $27 million in checks alone for his efforts to unseat George Bush and drive the GOP out of power, money that apparently couldn't buy a message for the Democrats. That accounted for over a third of all funds raised by the House for election campaigns.

Platts promises us that a narrower exemption for bloggers will shortly come under consideration as a replacement for H.R. 1606. Instead, Platts needs to re-read the First Amendment and ask why bloggers need an "exemption" to engage in political speech during an election campaign -- and for that matter, why any American should require one under any circumstances. We'd hate to have to oppose a solid Republican for Congress in the future, but we might need to see if the Keystone State's CD-19 can produce a primary opponent that understands the meaning of free political speech.

A Smarter Schedule, A Dumber AP

Despite calling the January 9^th schedule for Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings with the Judiciary Committee a "bipartisan repudiation" of Bush's request for expedited hearings in December in the AP lead on the story, nothing in the rest of the article even remotely suggests that the schedule repudiates anything. In fact, the article by David Espo suggests that the Republicans may have thought through a better strategy than the White House, and that the White House may well have agreed with them.

Here's what Espo wrote:

The Republican-controlled Senate will begin hearings Jan. 9 on Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court, leaders of the Judiciary Committee announced Thursday, a bipartisan repudiation of President Bush's call for a final confirmation vote before year's end.

"It simply wasn't possible to accommodate the schedule that the White House wanted," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman. He outlined a timetable that envisions five days of hearings, followed by a vote in committee on Jan. 17 and the full Senate on Jan. 20. ...

While Bush had called for a confirmation by the end of the year, administration spokesman Steve Schmidt raised no objection to the schedule. He said the White House had "great confidence in Chairman Specter to manage the extremely complicated process of moving a nominee to the Supreme Court through the U.S. Senate."

Nor was there any evidence the scheduling decision signaled any deeper dissatisfaction among Republicans to the nomination. "I think Judge Alito has made a very good first impression," Specter said.

Yes, that's quite the stunning bipartisan repudiation! No one seems unhappy with the arrangements, and Espo reports that the Republicans remain impressed with Alito during their meetings. Other than that, well, it's utter turmoil on Capitol Hill. Someone had better get Harriet Miers and the search committee back on the case.

The truth is rather obvious. While Bush would like Alito confirmed as quickly as possible, the reality of the calendar is that the Senate will soon be out of session and two major American family holidays will cut out a significant amount of the calendar. Bush could insist that the Judiciary Committee remain in town and use a populist argument about how ordinary Americans work hard through the Thanksgiving-Christmas season, but both Democrats and Republicans alike need to do some home-town politicking, especially those running for re-election in 2006. Committee members have a legitimate expectation of getting enough time to review Alito's voluminous record of opinions over the last 15 years, and three weeks doesn't quite seem realistic, considering that most have other committee assignments as well. It won't do anything positive for Alito to antagonize everyone just to push the full-Senate vote date forward an extra four weeks.

That gives everyone something to claim as a victory. It allows Democrats to tell their base that Sandra Day O'Connor might get to vote on one or two more cases before Alito relieves her and takes the swing vote away. More importantly, however, it allows the Republicans to compress the time between the committee hearings and the final floor vote, removing any chance of a prolonged public-relations campaign based on out-of-context sound bites from Alito's testimony, especially over Christmas when people will watch college football bowl games and NFL playoffs. And if the schedule holds up, Alito will win confirmation in plenty of time for Bush's State of the Union speech next year, giving him some political momentum at the start of the new Congressional session.

This new schedule makes plenty of practical and political sense for everyone. Rather than a "repudiation", it fits into the schedule like a custom-fit glove for everyone concerned. The AP wants to make mischief instead of simply reporting the facts.

Secret Code In Budget Deficit Foretells Alien Invasion!

The irony proved too delicious to pass unnoticed.

The National Press Foundation agreed to host a joint seminar on media coverage of the budget crisis, sponsored and initiated by the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution in order to promote wider and more in-depth coverage of the expanding monetary gap. Journalists, policymakers, and one lowly blogger (yours truly) came as guests and speakers to discuss the causes of the budget crisis and why the media has so much trouble engaging public attention on it.

However, when attendees and presenters alike arrived at the National Press Club, they found a separate event scheduled as a special luncheon, square in the middle of the budget-crisis seminar. Ambassador Joe Wilson would make an appearance and give a talk about his exploits in Niger and as a gadfly to the Bush administration. We received a first-hand practical lesson on attention spans when some of the press attending the seminar started turning up missing shortly before noon.

The lesson? Don’t expect school to outdraw the circus.

A good portion of the media stayed with the seminar, however, and for good reason. Heritage and Brookings had lined up some excellent presenters, especially David Walker, the GAO’s comptroller general and a dynamic speaker who clearly explained the biggest problem facing American fiscal security: the demographic bomb coming in the next generation and the financing of Medicare as a result. While we have focused on Social Security as a crisis, it pales in comparison to government-provided health care costs. Projections show that Medicare will wind up costing eight times more than Social Security over a long range period, and that was before the Bush administration added Part D for prescription-drug benefits.

Another telling moment: Mr. Walker remained to the very end of the seminar, listening intently from a front-row seat after his initial presentation. Normally, the GAO chief would be on the move after giving a speech, but he stayed to the end, hoping to hear how to get the public engaged in the crisis.

Two succeeding panels debated the causes and cures for the budget ills themselves, consisting of policy wonks, past and present, who talked about “revenue enhancements” and “spending caps”. Translated for the non-expert, that means higher taxes and benefit cuts. Everyone agreed that the American economy could not possibly grow its way out of the coming disaster and that the solution would come from a mix of the two different solutions, but that mix had competing experts shaking their heads and muttering under their breath. The tension between the various speakers made the budget debate more visceral and interesting than any reporter – or blogger – could have hoped.

And yet, when it came time for the journalist/blogger panel to speak, Joe Wilson’s Traveling Sideshow had arrived. Amazingly, a good number of attendees stuck around, along with David Walker, to hear how difficult it is to write about the budget in ways that interest readers – and more importantly, to interest editors who believe that their readers have no patience for the details of long-term debt ratios, explicit liabilities and implicit exposures, PAYGOs and spending triggers. We debated the ways in which we could cover the many necessary details that could make them as interesting as … well, as a true-life spy story gone awry.

Fortunately, inspiration struck this lowly blogger at that moment. The best way to make the details come alive is to make them the entire story. We need to take a page from the Joe Wilson playbook and turn the budget into a long-running mystery in which the details dribble out piecemeal, with some hint of several possible backstories that could embarrass politicians of either or both parties.

No, wait … that’s actually what we have now.

What would work better would be a good conspiracy theory – a notion that selected details, taken out of context, will tell a story that people can convince themselves will grant them some knowledge denied the rest of the plebes. Journalists who want to get column inches for budget stories need to create a Da Vinci Code for the United States budget, a National Treasure for Medicare. Enough coverage might convince readers that the details, when rearranged in one certain but naggingly inascertainable way, will lead to some hidden, vast store of wealth. Overnight, the American public will make themselves experts on budget shortfalls and expanding entitlements, compound interest payments on national debt, and unfunded liabilities. As journalists and bloggers, we could feed the notion that those who immerse themselves in the mystery could find the path to a fortune that could change the world if it ever came to light.

The biggest irony will be that if we succeed in actually engaging the American electorate in such a manner, that fiction might actually wind up being the truth.

Thanks to Heritage Foundation and Mark Tapscott for getting me an invitation to speak at the event, which will eventually be available through the Heritage website. I'll be reviewing some of the material later as we cover more budget items.

Alito Smear #2: The Draft Dodger

CNN weighed in last night with an AP story that will probably crank up the anti-Alito smear artists on the Left for the next 24-48 hours -- the fact that Samuel Alito went into the Army Reserve rather than wait to get drafted. Faced with a low draft number, Alito chose to enlist as an officer instead and spent a few months on active duty before starting an eight-year career in the Reserves:

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito joined the Army Reserve while he was a college student because his lottery number had made it likely he would be drafted for the Vietnam War, college roommates said Wednesday.

Alito was part of the Army's ROTC program during his years at Princeton -- 1968 to 1972 -- a period when the war in Southeast Asia escalated and more American men were drafted. ...

With graduation looming, the student deferment gone and Yale Law School waiting, Alito joined the Army Reserve.

"It was draft-related," college roommate Mark Dwyer said of Alito's decision. "I joined the teacher preparation program. We were all focused on the draft lottery when those numbers got called. We thought about where we were.

"Sam looked like he was sure to be drafted. He said, 'If I'm going into the Army, I might as well be an officer.'"

The AP story makes sure to give a couple of paragraphs of George Bush's now-controversial record of serving his country through the TexANG, and also mentioning Dick Cheney's student and family deferments. Although Alito is not running for office and his military service does not relate to Alito's nomination, the AP and CNN seem determined to toss anything at Alito to see if it sticks. This particular story has the added bonus of restarting the tired and long-debunked mythology of Bush's supposed "desertion".

Expect to see this get run into the ground for the next few days, as people start postulating about who got Alito into the Reserves, whether it be the Mob or some rich benefactor -- maybe Richard Mellon Scaife? -- who secretly controlled the system so that Alito could one day become a powerful jurist. The CNN headline, "Facing Draft, Alito Joined Army Reserve" already suggests that Alito chose the Reserve out of something less than a smart decision to enter the service as an officer -- for which he had already trained as an ROTC student during his undergrad years, before student deferments ended.

Needless to say, Alito's entire life shows a commitment to courageous public service, including the dangerous business of prosecuting organized-crime figures. This pseudostory on Alito's military career smells suspiciously like a chickenhawk smear, aided and abetted by the same news organizations that brought us the "covenant" story on John Roberts that turned out to be totally false, even based on its original reporting. The AP needs to determine whether it wants to keep a reputation for objective news reporting or create a new one for bias and spin that it rapidly has acquired over the past few years.

Lying Liars Love Joseph Wilson

Today's Wall Street Journal has a can't-miss editorial published in its open-to-all OpinionJournal website. It excoriates the "Clare Luce Democrats," those who have again appointed Joe Wilson their poster boy for the Bush-lied meme that went down to defeat in 2004 when their party used it as the only plank in their platform. Harry Reid took up that strategy himself when he led the Senate into secret session, the first time in 25 years Rule 21 had been used without agreement between the two parties:

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political. ...

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:

• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

Most commentators missed the final bullet point. The Robb-Silberman report was the "missing" Phase II that Reid demanded. He and the Democrats refused to accept it because it doesn't help them raise money or gather voters for elections.

Kerry had the good sense to drop Wilson like, as the WSJ says, a Paris Hilton boyfriend once Wilson's lies came to light. His delayed adoption by the rest of the Democratic leadership shows just how ethically empty and bereft of ideas they have become.

Did Corruption Kill New Orleans?

New testimony suggests that the flawed levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain from the New Orleans basin may have failed not only due to design defects, but also from decades-old corner cutting during their construction. The New York Times reports that interviews with the workers themselves that built the levees suggest that the construction crews failed to build the levees even to the faulty design specifications, leaving them inadequately anchored for resistance to large storms:

"These levees should have been expected to perform adequately at these levels if they had been designed and constructed properly," said the expert, Raymond Seed, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

"Not just human error was involved," Professor Seed said. "There may have been malfeasance."

Professor Seed, whose team was financed by the National Science Foundation, did not offer hard evidence to back up his accusation. But he said after the hearing that the team had been contacted by levee workers, contractors and, in some cases, widows of contractors who told stories of protective sheet pile being driven less deeply than plans called for and corners cut in choosing soils for construction, among other problems.

The news that corruption may have played a role in building levees in New Orleans should shock few, if any, familiar with the reputation of the city. It didn't get the nickname The Big Easy without a reason. With both the design and the construction now shown or suspected to fall below standard, it again shows that the levee failures could not easily have been predicted by the people on the ground, especially as Katrina turned father to the East and hit the city with the Category-3 force that all systems were designed to withstand.

Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the committee dealing with Homeland Security, promises to ask the Army Corps of Engineers "tough questions". Better that Congress ask a few of itself and the state of Louisiana. Over the years, the government has allocated more public-works funds to Louisiana than almost any other state. Has Congress done much to determine where that money gets spent? Has it demanded progress reports on its project monies? Besides, grilling the existing Corps may not tell them much; most of the work on those sections were done decades ago, with modern improvements only being additions onto the early work.

We need to fix the levee system around New Orleans, but this time, we need much better oversight than we have realized in the past. That can only come if Congress takes responsibility for its own part in ensuring the cash flows properly and gets used effectively.

Muslims Try To Outdo Von Choltitz

As the Nazis started falling back in France, Hitler devised an insane plan to burn Paris to the ground before any possible withdrawal. He put General von Choltitz in charge of the city, who stalled Hitler for as long as possible before surrendering the city intact to invading Free French forces. The German general could have easily destroyed major parts of historical Paris, and nearly sacrificed both his life and those of his family in keeping the City of Light intact.

What von Choltitz preserved, Paris' own Muslim population appears intent on destroying now. For a full week, night has brought riots and destruction to the City of Light, while the French government seems paralyzed and unsure about how to stop it. It started when French police investigated a robbery in an area known to law enforcement as a "no-go" area, one in which even police dare not intrude on Islamist territory:

President Jacques Chirac warned yesterday of a "dangerous situation" and the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, called an emergency cabinet meeting after a wave of serious urban unrest spread to more than a dozen towns and housing estates around Paris.

"The law must be firmly applied in a spirit of dialogue and respect," Mr Chirac told ministers. "An absence of dialogue and an escalation of disrespect will lead to a dangerous situation. There cannot be no-go areas in the republic." ...

The unrest was triggered by last Thursday's accidental death in Clichy-sous-Bois, five miles from Aulnay, of two African teenagers who were electrocuted while hiding in a power substation from what they believed, apparently wrongly, was police pursuit.

The riots typify French reaction to Islamism, and spring from a European approach to the Islamic wave of migration into Europe. After WWII, the French built so-called "sink estates" for the workers they encouraged to emigrate to help rebuild the nation, as did Germany. Most of these workers came from Turkey and colonies in North Africa. Instead of planning for their integration into society, however, the French allowed these communities to grow and fester in economic and social isolation. After two generations, the sink estates have proven to be nothing more than preplanned ghettoes, and the workers have no future except as second-class citizens of the nations they helped rebuild from devastation.

Even absent radical Islamism, the French should have foreseen the disaster that has presently come upon them, and had a plan to handle it. After 9/11, the French should have responded proactively to counter the push for French Muslims to join efforts with al-Qaeda and other kinds of terrorist groups. Whether through fatalism or Gallic arrogance, the French has refused to acknowledge the danger -- and now the economic frustration has joined with the religious lunacy of Islamofascism to turn parts of one of the capitals of the West into little more than Fallujah-sur-Seine.

The police have long avoided patrols in these areas, preferring to leave the Muslims there to their own devices -- and they have understood the message: France will not fight for her own territory. Even responsible Muslims have no choice under those circumstances to work within the power structure that arises in these ghettoes, thanks to French surrender. The result has not been rioting, as understood by the press, but rather a series of running battles between France's belated response to the violence and proto-terrorists using the same hit-and-run field tactics seen by Coalition forces in Fallujah and other cities in Iraq. The only weapons they lack are explosives for IEDs, and so the fatality rate has stayed low -- at least thus far.

The French still dither when they should act instead, sending the message even more clearly that they will not act in their own defense. The Muslim Uprising will soon become an al-Qaeda rallying point; not an intifada, as some have surmised, but an actual military front in AQ's war on the West. They intend to turn the sink estates into holy land and ensure that their bloody rule cannot be dislodged. If the French do not act quickly, they may soon find out what happens when fascists without the humanity of a von Choltitz will do to their beloved Paris once they have enough power.

The Palestinian Version, However, They're Fine With

Sometimes, it really appears that people have an unending capacity for unintentional satire. Take for example the Guardian (UK) on a new, non-lethal Israeli tactic against the Palestinians. The newspaper reports on the UN's disapproval of sonic attacks on Palestinian strongholds in Gaza during the engagements caused by Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in recent weeks after the Israeli disengagement:

Israel is deploying a terrifying new tactic against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip by letting loose deafening "sound bombs" that cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children.

The removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip opened the way for the military to use air force jets to create dozens of sonic booms by breaking the sound barrier at low altitude, sending shockwaves across the territory, often at night. Palestinians liken the sound to an earthquake or huge bomb. They describe the effect as being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and "leaving you shaking inside".

The Palestinian health ministry says the sonic booms have led to miscarriages and heart problems. The United Nations has demanded an end to the tactic, saying it causes panic attacks in children. The shockwaves have also damaged buildings by cracking walls and smashing thousands of windows.

Does it really take a genius to see what the UN and the Guardian have missed here? The Israelis tried to dissuade the Palestinians from attacking them through non-violent means -- the use of sonic booms to confuse and disrupt them, make them stressed out, but leave them alive. The Palestinians, on the other hand, toss bombs indiscriminately over the border and in restaurants and buses, killing whomever happens to be around at the the wrong place and time. And what do the Israelis get in return? A scolding from the UN and fifteen paragraphs in the Guardian about how damaging this tactic is to the Palestinian collective psyche.

Let's try to get this right, shall we? A review.

When the Israelis use sonic weapons, the sounds "cause widespread fear, induce miscarriages and traumatise children." When the Palestinians use real bombs, they cause widespread fear, kill pregnant women, and their born and unborn children.

When Israelis use sonic weapons, the shock of the bang is like "being hit by a wall of air that is painful on the ears, sometimes causing nosebleeds and 'leaving you shaking inside'." When the Palestinians toss rockets over the border and explode them in Israeli cities, Israelis get hit by a wall of sharpnel that causes full-body bleedouts and leaving pieces of human meat shaking on the broken walls all around the blast area.

When Israelis use their non-lethal tactic, it "damage[s] buildings by cracking walls and smashing thousands of windows ... causes panic attacks in children [the UN says] ... have led to miscarriages and heart problems." Palestinian bombing of pizzerias, bars, and buses damage buildings by driving nails through the windows and walls, usually still along with the human flesh of its victims still stuck to them. They cause spontaneous abortions by killing the mothers and heart problems by blowing the innards out of Israelis whose mistake was going out to enjoy a meal or a bus ride.

On the plus side, the Palestinian bombs cure panic attacks in children ... permanently.

Does the UN really need this kind of publicity at a time when we already question their integrity and judgment? Do they want to pick this moment in their organization's history to show that they are this irretrievably stupid as well? And as for the Guardian, the paper has long had a problem with balance when it comes to Israel or just about any other subject, but in this case its intellectual dishonesty has gone so far as to make a case for utter hopelessness of ever walking it back.

House Defeats Blogger Speech Bill

Despite the efforts of bloggers in promoting an exception to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance rules for on-line punditry, the House has defeated the measure on a procedural vote. The lower chamber turned down the measure, already passed by the Senate, by failing to gather the needed two-thirds majority to overcome technical obstacles placed in its path by original BCRA sponsors Christopher Shays (R) and Marty Meehan (D):

Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the
Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

The bill did get a majority of the vote, but thanks to heavy Democratic opposition, it failed to gather the supermajority needed to overcome the Shays-Meehan procedural block. Of the 225 supporting votes, only 46 came from Democrats. Of the 182 opposing the measure, only 40 came from Republicans.

I don't want to unnecessarily turn this free speech issue into a partisan battle, as this fight has united the blogosphere across the political spectrum, and I want to see that dynamic continue. Harry Reid, after all, originally introduced this legislation to the Senate and deserves credit for his efforts. However, when one sees the roll call vote, the partisan split on free speech appears rather obvious. One party voted 179-38 for the bill, and the other voted 143-46 against it. (Bernie Sanders, Socialist, provided the other Nay vote.)

Both houses of Congress promise to return to this topic with a narrower exemption for bloggers, and the blogosphere will welcome that. It still doesn't address the real defect of the BCRA, though, which regulates political speech by treating it as a purchasable commodity. The First Amendment specifically protected the free exercise of political speech, and yet under the BCRA the First Amendment now offers more protection to nude dancing and pornography than it does to political candidates who want to communicate with prospective constituents.

Somehow, I don't think it takes an originalist to understand just how wrong that result is.

UPDATE: In the interest of cleaning our own house, here are the Republicans who voted against the bill:

Boehlert.........Hobson.........Platts.........Upton
Bradley (NH).....Johnson (CT)...Ramstad........Walden (OR)
Castle...........Johnson (IL)...Regula.........Walsh
Coble............Kirk...........Saxton.........Wamp
Emerson..........LaHood.........Schmidt........Weldon (PA)
Frelinghuysen....LaTourette.....Schwarz........Wilson (NM)
Gallegly.........Leach..........Shays..........Wolf
Gilchrest........LoBiondo.......Simmons........Bass
Gillmor..........Osborne........Smith (NJ).....
Hefley...........Petri..........Turner.........

Democrats: Racism OK For Liberals Opposing Conservatives

The Democrats in Maryland have decided that they like racism, especially racist stereotypes such as slave gibberish and minstrel-show caricatures of African-Americans, and have publicly come out in favor of their use in political campaigns. While such imagery would get a Republican immediately denounced as a hatemonger, Democrats feel free to use them as long as their targets are conservative African-Americans, such as Michael Steele:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. ...

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

One of the excuses used by these Democrats is that Steele refused to object when Governor Robert Ehrlich met with supporters at a club that has no black members in its history. The Elkridge Club held a fundraiser attended by Ehrlich and widely decried by the Democrats as an indication of GOP pandering to racist whites in the south. They failed to mention, however, that several Democrats have made their own use of the Elkridge Club, including the brother and chief political advisor to their gubernatorial candidate to replace Ehrlich.

That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are -- a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better.

After all, it's not discrimination when you hate someone more because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, is it?

Not if you're a leftist Democrat, it isn't.

UPDATE: Robert Ehrlich, not Mike. Thanks to a number of CQ readers who pointed out the error.

Anti-Filibuster Forces Add Strength As Bush Reaches Out To Moderates

Two stories out of Washington help explain the frustration felt by Harry Reid yesterday and his need to pull a splashy stunt to try to capture the press' attention away from the Alito nomination. The first, a Washington Post story, reports that the Bush administration has started expanding Judge Alito's Senatorial visits to moderates outside of the Judiciary Committee to feed the momentum that appears to have built for his confirmation:

A day after President Bush nominated him to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Alito spent the day on Capitol Hill introducing himself to more lawmakers. He focused on Democratic senators representing Republican-leaning states as well as Republican members of a bipartisan coalition that headed off judicial filibusters this year.

White House strategists assume that they will lose at least the 22 Senate Democrats who voted against confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in September. But they hope to win over enough red-state Democrats to thwart any attempt to block Alito. If the Republican leadership can hold together its 55-member caucus, it would need five Democrats to break a filibuster and ensure Alito's confirmation. ...

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), another member of the Gang of 14, said that "it's way too early to talk about extraordinary circumstances." The group -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- plans to meet tomorrow in the office of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to talk through its approach to the nomination.

Alito, a potent conservative voice on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, was chosen by Bush after conservatives forced the withdrawal of Harriet Miers's nomination last week. Alito began his tour of red-state Democrats yesterday with Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.). He is to visit Nelson today and Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) tomorrow.

None of the three sits on the Judiciary Committee, whose members are usually visited first by Supreme Court nominees, and all three said the White House offered the courtesy calls without being asked.

It demonstrates that the White House understands the need to get in front of the radical Left's efforts to define Alito before they do it for him. It contrasts with the reluctance that the White House showed in having Miers meet with anyone more than necessary in her brief stint as the nominee and underscores the confidence that Bush has in Alito's ability to convince moderates of his outstanding qualities. Getting moderates on board now, at least to the extent of opposing a filibuster, will keep the Democrats from sinking Alito's nomination. If a floor vote gets taken, Alito will win it, and probably rather easily.

The key may still be the GOP votes in the Gang of 14, however. Two have already stated categorically that they will not support the notion of "extraordinary circumstances" for Judge Alito. Those two, Lindsay Graham and Mike DeWine, are generally considered the most conservative of the Republican squishes anyway. However, the Washington Times notes that a pro-choice member of the group also has her doubts about using a filibuster, given the candidate involved:

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and another group member, was largely positive about the nomination despite her "troubling concerns" about Judge Alito's dissent in a 1991 case in which he said it was not an "undue burden" for a woman to notify her husband before an abortion.

"I do not yet see a basis for invoking extraordinary circumstances," she said. "He clearly has the legal credentials, the professional excellence and the integrity required of a Supreme Court Justice."

That makes three Republican votes in the Gang of 14 that have publicly repudiated "extraordinary circumstances" or significantly played it down. Two Democrats joined Collins as well in her skepticism about applying an extremist label to Alito, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both come from solid red states, and neither want to have to fight their next re-election campaign with a filibuster against an Alito on their record.

Barring some horrendous and highly unlikely revelation from this well-known and long-time jurist, this nomination looks like a lock. That has Reid scrambling to distract the Left by providing cheap-trick circuses for the press, desperately trying to force the Bush administration back on the defensive. However, with their fizzled Fitzmas rapidly dissipating and another clear winner for Bush on the Supreme Court, the Democrats have lost that momentum and have to settle once again for the role that voters selected for them last November and in the last three elections: powerless.

UPDATE: Susan Collins is pro-choice, not pro-life, which goes to show you that the Captain should not miss his morning cup of Earl Grey before venturing out onto the blogospheric seas. Thanks to a number of CQ readers for that correction.

Liberals Love Alito: LA Times

While conservative enthusiasm for Judge Samuel Alito has received widespread coverage from the Exempt Media this week, the assumption of the reverse has received universal and unquestioned acceptance. In the simplified world of mass media, the judiciary gets represented as a zero-sum game, and where the parties keep the stakes high in order to prevail. Interestingly, the Los Angeles Times breaks that mold first in a profile of some unexpected support for Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court -- from liberal legal activists:

Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.

Kate Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Alito's.

She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said.

Jeff Wasserstein, a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view.

"I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative."

This demonstrates the healing power of originalist thought on the bench. True originalists will come to conclusions based strictly on the law, and not with notions about what they interpret as the "public good" -- value judgments outside the law that politics should settle in the venue of the Legislature, between elected representatives of the people. More than one of the attorneys and jurists interviewed on the record by the Times expressed surprise that Alito could be classified by anyone as a conservative based on their work with him. All of them tell the Times that Alito carefully constructed his decisions and opinions on strict reading of the law, and only on that basis.

The Times ends up with over a half-dozen former colleagues of Alito, all Democrats and most of them activist, who support his nomination to the Supreme Court. Of them, only one states that the support comes from the notion that he expects to get no better viable nomination from the Bush administration. The rest recognize Alito's legal scholarship and temperament provide him excellent qualification to rise to the highest bench in the nation.

Expect to see some of these same names testifying at the confirmation hearings. It will provide a few needed laughs to see Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden try to spin a John Kerry election attorney as a right-wing nutcase for her support of Judge Alito.

UPDATE: Fixed bad link to the unrelated Washington Post article; you should get the LAT article now. Thanks to Brant at SWLiP for the tip. (That Earl Gray in the morning gets more and more important!)

Germany Stumbles On Forming Government

Angela Merkel has stumbled badly coming out of the gate in forming a government from the Grand Coalition negotiated between the SPD and her CDU/CSU, as the Socialist element of the SPD has bolted from Gerhardt Shroeder's party. The turmoil cost her one key ally from the CSU, and now it appears that the country might have to face new elections in the spring:

Germany's nascent government was in chaos yesterday after the would-be finance minister, a key ally of the future chancellor, Angela Merkel, turned his back on the administration.

Edmund Stoiber, the governor of Bavaria, said he would prefer to stay in Germany's most prosperous state than risk his fortunes in Berlin.

Mr Stoiber, who is the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), junior partners in the conservative alliance led by Mrs Merkel, said his decision was influenced by uncertainty over the future of the Social Democrats (SPD).

Franz Münterfering, designated vice-chancellor in the planned grand coalition, resigned as head of the SPD on Monday in an internal struggle over the leadership and the direction of the party.

Mr Münterfering also hinted that he might not join the coalition as labour minister as planned. He made clear that he needed to have the official support of his party for the new administration and his place in it.

While the politicians blame other parties for the instability, in truth no one wants to take on the German economic portfolio, and for good reason. Decades of creating a cradle-to-grave social system that reflects more of a Ponzi scheme than a solvent financial program have led Germany to the brink of economic disaster. Their finances stalled the overall EU economy, along with France, and for the same reason: not enough new workers entering the pipeline to pay for the former workers collecting benefits. Any attempt to fix the problem results in massive strikes and demonstrations and an end to ambitious political careers -- and not just for economic ministers.

Merkel has the unfortunate luck to have won office on the brink of a disaster that everyone recognizes but no one wants to sacrifice their own comfort to avoid. Millions of Germans see the train wreck coming, but none want to be the one who pulls the brake. Instead of acknowledging their lack of intestinal fortitude, however, party leaders allow the illusion to continue by blaming interparty politics for avoiding tough ministerial assignments, which might well force another round of elections onto a weary German electorate if not resolved in the next fortnight.

Before Americans get too sanguine about this, we should know that we face a similar problem, although not quite as acute as the Germans. We have a huge unfunded mandate issue with Medicare -- estimated at eight times the problem that Social Security presents -- and yet no one wants to seriously tackle entitlement reform. If Americans think about how easily the Social Security reform efforts got shot down here, then the German response shouldn't appear so amusing or unrecognizable.

Gomery Report, Or Liberals Run Wild!

Yesterday's big news in Canada came not from Parliament barring doors, as did its American counterpart, but from the release of the long-awaited Gomery Report. Lengthy, detailed, and detached, its style appears more scholarly than accusatory, and almost seems designed to moderate calls for justice into points of mildly interesting historical review.

The facts, however, completely the style. Gomery accuses people at the highest levels of the former Chrétien Liberal government of malfeasance, theft, money laundering, and more. Gomery identified Jean Pelletier, Chrétien's chief of staff, and minister Alfonse Gagliano as the highest-ranking members of the government personally tied to the corruption, and blames Chrétien himself for allowing the pair to run the entire scam right out of the Prime Minister's office:

# The Prime Minister's Office, via Jean Pelletier, and then-minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano, directed the awarding of contracts through the Sponsorship Program – bypassing normal departmental oversight. ...

# Jean Chrétien ignored advice from the Privy Council Office that it would be prudent to transfer the sponsorship program to a department or let PCO run it.

# Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier are both to blame for the mismanagement of taxpayer money resulting from a program that was set up without proper oversight and had no clearly articulated objectives.

They didn't get all of the blame, however. Jacques Corriveau, the long-time Chrétien crony, also gets his share of exposure in the report for running the kickback part of the Adscam scheme. He lets Gagliano and Pelletier off the hook for the kickbacks -- a conclusion that will have the Tories screaming -- but blames Chrétien for creating a program with so few safeguards as to allow them in the first place. Also officially off the hook, at least as far as concerns Gomery, is present Prime Minister Paul Martin. Despite his position during the Adscam period as Finance Minister, Gomery states that "Mr. Martin, whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct."

That may well be the final legal word on Martin, but it's doubtful that either he or his Liberal Party will escape political judgment as easily. Martin showed impressive adeptness at dodging Adscam especially during the spring's testimony, but that came in lieu of the full report. He asked Canadians for patience and to wait until Gomery concluded his inquiry to make their minds up about the Liberals and his government.

Yesterday, the bill arrived, and it looks huge. Even the media, which normally could be expected to soften the blow, called it the realization of the "Liberals' worst fears". The CBC, a government-owned network that has been quite friendly to the Martin executive, had this to say yesterday:

Mr. Justice John Gomery has touched a nerve.

By concluding that Jacques Corriveau, a close friend of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, masterminded an "elaborate kickback scheme" to funnel money to Liberal party headquarters in Quebec, he has confirmed the party's worst fears.

"Jacques Corriveau was the central figure in an elaborate kickback scheme by which he enriched himself personally and provided funds and benefits" to the Liberal Party, Gomery wrote in the summary of his fact finding report. ...

This will not go over well with voters who are expected to go to the polls in the spring.

The aura of scandal will have lingering effects, especially in the province of Quebec. It will give ammunition to the opposition parties, especially the Bloc Québécois.

And while the CBC noted that Martin came out of Gomery looking "pretty good", it seemed passingly strange that he did so, considering that he held the Finance portfolio during Chrétien's term of office. The rest of the Canadian media have given this report the highest possible profile, choosing to make it the biggest story in Canada since the testimony itself rather than, as some feared, burying it immediately upon release. That isn't good news for Martin, nor will Chrétien's legal challenge help out the Liberals as they defend against a no-confidence motion. All of the legal activity will keep Gomery and his conclusions in the forefront of Canadian thought for weeks and months to come.

What do the Tories need to do? They need to learn a lesson from their springtime debacle and strike as soon as possible. Delay only encourages the Liberals to write the entire issue off as a dead letter applicable to an expired government. While the electorate still recalls the shock and anger over the betrayal of their government for petty cash, Harper needs to give Martin one hard push to knock him out of the PMO. Waiting until next spring, when voting seems a bit more convenient, delivers the message that Canadians can live with a corrupt government running their nation for a few months. If so, then why not for a couple of years?

First Mate Update, Day 5: Home Sweet Home

The First Mate is at home, resting comfortably after her bout with pneumonia. She's still hacking and coughing, but her meds should take care of that over the next couple of weeks. She has had an ongoing problem with lung infections since the pancreas transplant, as I mentioned earlier, and they want to do a study on the cultures they've collected to see if they can determine how to get her past them.

She says to tell you all hello, and thank all of you for the prayers.

Democrats Deny Open Government To American Electorate

In a move that has not occurred in twenty-five years, the Democrats shut the American public out of the Senate chamber and forced a secret session of the upper chamber this afternoon. Without warning, Harry Reid invoked Rule 21 and after an immediate second, chased out the press and Senate staffers, locked the doors -- and threw a tanrum over Joe Wilson:

he US Senate held a rare secret session to discuss a scandal that led to the resignation of a top White House official last week and the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Opposition Democrats requested the closed door session saying it was necessary to allow for a full, open debate on alleged manipulation of prewar intelligence.

This shows the emptiness of Democrats, both in head and heart. As Bill Frist said afterwards, the minority party proves it has nothing to contribute except cheap political stunts. They know that the Fitzgerald investigation came up with next to nothing on the Plame leak -- because it didn't constitute a crime under US statute. Despite having a prosecutor independent of the Bush administration run wild for almost two years and exceed the original boundaries of his mandate, the only indictment he could muster was one in which a very stupid and probably criminal act by a single person could be verified -- and that just had to do with the investigation and grand jury itself, not with the Plame leak.

Reid says that the Wilson/Plame brouhaha proves that the Bush administration lied about the war. This was practically the entire Democratic Party platform last year -- and it lost them the White House and four seats in the Senate. One would think that going back to the well a year later would be stupid beyond belief, but apparently Reid forgot about that big poll taken last November. He also forgot about this bipartisan report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which outlines exactly how Wilson's report in fact bolstered the case that Iraq still wanted to get material for nuclear weapons -- and that Wilson had lied about it in leaks to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and then in his own editorial and book. He also lied about how he got his mission to Niger, and has yet to explain how he managed to get that mission and not sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Further, if Reid wanted to really investigate all this, he should be throwing the doors to the Senate wide open, shining a light on the corruption he claims exists in this issue. What he's doing, however, is merely venting the same old bromides that the Democrats have screamed for the past two years at an electorate that has long since tired of their crybaby, whining tactics. He's locked the doors to give it an aura of authenticity. Instead, it looks like a big, heaping helping of pompous impotence.

The press should take careful note of this. In all of the debate over the intelligence and diplomacy leading up to the Iraq War, the Republicans never even entertained locking the doors on the Senate or Congress for the debate. Not once. They offered full public hearings on the issues, and only in committee -- and only when appropriate -- closed hearings on specifically classified issues. Rule 21 should have been reserved for only the most dire circumstances; instead, Reid has abused it for his petulant tantrums.

Will those in the Fourth Estate stand idly by while the Senate locks its doors in their faces?

UPDATE: Some of my liberal friends (I mean that honestly, not sarcastically) in the comments want to argue that it takes a secret session of the full Senate to discuss intelligence. If so, why is this the first time in 25 years it has been found necessary to do so? When the issue of Iraq came up in 1998 to debate the change of policy on Iraq to a commitment to regime change -- discussing the same intelligence on WMD that proved out-of-date five years later -- the GOP held that in open session, where the American electorate could keep an eye on the proceedings.

I guess when Harry Reid talks on intelligence, the Democrats want no one to listen to what he has to say. Maybe because he doesn't speak with intelligence on the subject.

This has nothing to do with debating intelligence, and everything to do with flexing what little muscle the Democrats can muster in the Senate. They want to show what will happen if the Byrd option gets invoked. Lindsay Graham and Mike DeWine has given the GOP enough votes to pass it with their comments yesterday and Sunday. It has nothing to do with anything other than that -- and if anyone thinks Reid has anything more altruistic in mind, they simply haven't paid attention.

The Alito Smear: Italian=Mafioso

The anti-Alito gang has already come up with its first smear, and at least this time it doesn't hinge on speculation of the sexual orientation of a five-year-old son of the nominee. No, this time it relates to the ethnicity of the nominee himself, Samuel Alito, and his failure to win a conviction in one Mafia case seventeen years ago. The implication, which even Chris Matthews noted was "disgusting" and "amazingly bad politics", will claim that Alito somehow let one slip away for his paisan. From the first paragraph and then the second talking point, courtesy of Redstate:

While serving as a U.S. Attorney, Alito failed to obtain a key conviction, releasing nearly two dozen mobsters back into society. ...

U.S. Attorney Alito Failed to Obtain Conviction of 20 Mobsters, Saying “You Can’t Win Them All.” Federal law enforcement agencies sustained a major rebuff in their anti-mafia campaign with the August 1988 acquittal of all 20 defendants accused of making up the entire membership of the Lucchese family in the New Jersey suburbs of New York. The verdict ended what was believed to be the nation’s longest federal criminal trial and according to the Chicago Tribune, dealt the government a “stunning defeat.” Samuel Alito, the US Attorney on the case, said, “Obviously we are disappointed but you realize you can’t win them all.” Alito also said he had no regrets about the prosecution but in the future would try to keep cases “as short and simple as possible.” Alito continued, “I certainly don’t feel embarrassed and I don’t think we should feel embarrassed.

This document started circulating, unsigned, yesterday on Capitol Hill and among the press. As has been noted elsewhere, the mouthbreathers who produced it forgot the first rule of e-mailing sensitive Microsoft Word documents -- don't do it at all. The metadata clearly indicates that the author of this goes by the name "prendergastc", most likely Chris Prendergast, who works on the DNC. By displaying the document properties in Word, one finds out that the company holding the license for the copy of Word that created the document is -- the DNC. The last person to edit the document was AdlerD, which Redstate thinks would be Devorah Adler, also of the DNC, and who makes considerably more than Chris Prendergast does. That moves the problem from an out-of-control flunky to one of deliberate smear attempts by the Democratic Party itself.

There's a bit more here, too. The document comes from a template that was created on July 7th, which coincides with the nomination of John Roberts. The document/template title? "how they made their $$, personal holdings, the whole deal". Talk about operating from a playbook! If one needs to see a reason why originalism is not just desirable but at this stage absolutely necessary, it would be difficult to come up with a better example.

I wonder how many Italians want to continue to support the Democrats as long as they have so little compunction about using ethnic smears to kneecap the people they see as their enemies. For that matter, I wonder why anyone wants to support these kind of tactics, and this level of incompetence.

The Big Three On Alito

Four weeks ago, the editorial boards of three most influential liberal newspapers reviewed the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court with suspicion due to her lack of a track record on legal issues. Oddly, the LA Times came closest to mirroring the eventual conservative reaction while the New York Times and Washington Post took a more optimistic approach to the unusual choice, although all three wondered about the role that proximity played in Bush's selection.

Today, however, Bush's choice of a clearly conservative jurist with originalist approach has removed all of the suspicion and doubt from the editorialists' minds. Unsurprisingly, the most definite reaction comes from the NYT, where they decry the "lost opportunity" by picking a "white man" instead of the "wrong woman":

Whatever the answer, this nomination is yet another occasion to bemoan lost opportunities. Mr. Bush could have signaled that he was prepared to move on to a more expansive presidency by nominating a qualified moderate who could have garnered a nearly unanimous Senate vote rather than another party-line standoff. He could have sent a signal about his commitment to inclusiveness by demonstrating that he understood his error with Harriet Miers had been in picking the wrong woman, and that the answer did not have to be the seventh white man on the court. But he didn't, any more than he saw Sept. 11 as an opportunity to build a new, inclusive world order of civilized nations aligned against terrorism.

One might point out to the Gray Lady that the Bush administration has once again taken an issue on the latter point to the UNSC, which then watered down a resolution demanding Syria cooperate in a terrorist attack on a Lebanese politician to near-meaninglessness before passing it. After Syria rejected it today, only the NYT would assume that the Russians and Chinese would allow the world body to do anything meaningful -- which is exactly what happened when we demanded an end to the twelve-year Iraqi stalemate from the UNSC. The new world order that they envision coming from Turtle Bay doesn't exist, and won't ever exist, regardless of whether Bush is in office or not. The only way to build an inclusive world order where Russia and China hold vetos is to surrender to terrorism and consign the UNSC to passing resolutions congratulating itself on its ability to do nothing.

And what, exactly, does that have to do with a Supreme Court nomination? Well ... nothing. But the NY Times simply seems incapable of discussing anything without throwing in their tired disagreements with Bush's foreign policy. They conclude by even tossing Scooter Libby into the mix.

The Los Angeles Times stays a bit more on topic, but doesn't sound a much more hopeful tone. They do sound more grateful than the NYT for a clearly delineated fight this time, calling Alito the "anti-Miers" for his long and easily perused track record:

Alito's hearings will mark a return to form for Washington. Most of the time that's bad news, but hearings for Supreme Court nominees have become such comical spectacles that they turn the conventional wisdom on its head. So long as it's about legitimate issues, some good old-fashioned partisanship may be just what the judge ordered. ...

Now all is right with the world. Liberal interest groups and Democratic senators are criticizing the president's choice, and his allies are defending it. The battle lines are drawn, and they are familiar. Of course, this is no assurance that the coming fight will be edifying. But better to debate judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation than executive privilege or Senate procedure. Even those opposed to Alito's nomination can be grateful for that.

Gratitude aside, partisanship comes as a symptom of what ails the court in the first place -- and why the appointment of originalists has become so necessary. In the true mold of the Constitution, politics would play little role in confirming jurists, and a man or woman with Alito's experience would hardly get any remarks when promoted to the Supreme Court. Only because the Court in recent decades has arrogated legislative powers to itself does partisan politics now play a role in getting nominees confirmed. The very demands that Democrats place on these nominees demonstrates the corrupt outlook previous courts have taken with the Constitution, and why jurists like Alito and Roberts provide the only antidote.

The Washington Post, as it did with Miers, takes the most reasonable tone, although it does take a well-deserved swipe at President Bush for the Miers nomination:

IT WAS ONLY a few days ago that President Bush was touting Harriet Miers as a pioneering woman whose lack of experience as a judge was a selling point for service on the Supreme Court. Yesterday he responded to the implosion of her nomination with a return to basics: a highly qualified nominee who adds no diversity to the court but whose reputed conservatism greatly excites the president's base -- and greatly offends the opposition party. Indeed, as soon as the White House proposed Judge Samuel Alito's elevation to the Supreme Court, the battle that both sides have been anticipating since the president took office began. Reports and statements praising or denouncing the nominee whizzed around town. Everyone, it seems, had a judgment at the ready. We await a thorough and serious confirmation process before venturing ours. ...

One thing that is clear from a cursory review of Judge Alito's work is that he is not a bomb-thrower but rather a judge who is careful -- even in dissent -- to be respectful of his colleagues' work. His opinions probably don't contain the sort of flamboyant statements that can become defining sound bites in a bruising confirmation battle. Evaluating Judge Alito will necessarily be a more subtle project than assessing some of the judges President Bush has nominated to lower courts.

The Post has decided to play it safe this time around. Its editorial remains fairly neutral, pointing out Alito's experience and advising partisans to keep their powder dry until the hearings. That won't happen, nor should it; Alito's record speaks for itself, and people have the right to debate it now if they wish. For their part, the Senators should focus on those qualifications instead of Alito's politics, just as they did with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and allow the elected President to seat the well-qualified nominee of his choice. None of the three mention that Alito won unanimous approval from Democratic-controlled Senates to his last two positions, and that nothing he's done in the fifteen years since has done anything but add to his resume and qualifications to rise to the Supreme Court.

That may be the most germane point of all -- and it's telling that all three completely ignored it.

UN Demands Syrian Cooperation, Syria Refuses

Yesterday, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a watered-down resolution demanding full cooperation from Syria and its dictator, Bashar Assad, in the investigation into the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri. The resolution gained Russian and Chinese support only when the sponsoring nations of the US, UK, and France removed the specific threat of economic sanctions:

The Security Council voted unanimously on Monday to compel Syria to stop obstructing a United Nations investigation into the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri or face unspecified "further action."

The 15-to-0 vote was a diplomatic shunning of Syria, which has found itself increasingly isolated since the publication 10 days ago of an initial report by the chief United Nations investigator in the case that identified high-ranking Syrian officials as suspects in the assassination. Among the votes was that of Algeria, the Arab representative on the Council.

While the resolution that was approved did not include a threat of specific economic sanctions, as some earlier drafts did, it keeps such options on the table because it was adopted under a provision that gives the United Nations broad powers to punish noncompliance.

The measure orders Syria to cooperate "fully and unconditionally" with the inquiry and to give complete access to places, documents and people that investigators ask for - a caveat that diplomats said included President Bashar al-Assad, who has refused to be interviewed. The measure further orders Syria not to meddle in Lebanon's domestic politics, and it calls for international travel bans and asset freezes on suspects the investigation refers to a Security Council panel.

The weakened resolution lost some of its power when the two veto-holding nations demanded the last-minute edit. The true power of the resolution came from the threat of economic isolation, which would spell an end to the two-generation rule of the Assad family over the last 40 years. While the new resolution specifies that other actions will be taken if Syria refuses, the failure of Russia and China to support a sanctions regime at even the threat stage doesn't bode well for any concrete action coming from the UN.

The Syrians did not lose this point, either. In fact, after acting rather strangely in the UNSC debate by accusing the three sponsoring nations of foreknowledge of al-Qaeda attacks, they have rejected the resolution completely this morning:

Syria has angrily rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution that demands Damascus cooperate fully in the investigation into the killing of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri or face "further measures." ...

Syria's Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said the U.N. report convicted Syria before it faced trial, and he wondered why the United Nations had assumed its forces were guilty just because they were in Lebanon at the time of the bombing.

Since the Syrians supposedly had their forces in Lebanon to "stabilize" their neighbor, then one would at least assume that the carbombing assassination represented a massive failure on the part of the Syrians to deliver on that promise. However, the preliminary report of the murder shows plenty of evidence and testimony that they did more than just show up when the bomb went off, and that evidence comes from a UN investigation that still hasn't gotten any cooperation from Syria. Their stonewalling has not had the effect they want of killing the inquiry. If the initial report doesn't "convict" Syria as its foreign minister claims, its refusal to cooperate fully with further investigation shows that Syria has much to hide about Hariri's assassination, and that the Assad regime in particular has significant involvement.

The UNSC must enforce this resolution immediately. If the Russians and the Chinese veto any meaningful consequences for Syria's intransigence, then they will not mind if later we just skip the entire UNSC pas de deux when it comes to Iran. If the two expect us to consult them on issues like this in the future, they'd better start coming up with better answers than they have for the past three years on the UNSC. In the meantime, the sponsoring nations can put a big dent in the Syrian economy, perhaps big enough to push Bashar Assad out of Syria altogether.

The Byrd Option Gets More Backing

Yesterday, Lindsay Graham stepped away from his foolish flirtation with the Democrats and warned that any attempt to filibuster a qualified nominee to the Supreme Court such as Samuel Alito -- who had not yet been announced as the selection -- would not qualify as an "exceptional circumstance", and that Graham would then support the Byrd option eliminating the filibuster. Now on Hugh Hewitt's show, we can add another of the Gang of 14, Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, who explicitly stated that he will vote for the Byrd option to end filibusters on judicial nominees. Radioblogger has the transcript:

HH: Your colleague on judiciary, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said yesterday on Face The Nation, that if Democrats attempt to filibuster, he will work to break it, meaning that this is not something the Gang of 14 had in mind. Do you agree with Senator Graham that this is not a filibusterable nomination?

MD: Oh, I absolutely do. I mean, this is not under what our definition of extraordinary circumstances is. This is a nomination that's clearly within the mainstream of conservative judges. This is someone who has a long, distinguished record, someone who I would classify as kind of a classic conservative justice, who believes you should decide each case one at a time, you should not be a judicial activist, you should not be intrusive, that a judge should kind of sit back, wait for that case to come, and then make a decision on the case, but not be really a legislator. And really, that's what this judge's record would, at least seem to me, to show.

HH: So absent any extraordinary revelation, is it fair to say, Senator DeWine, that if the Constitutional option has to be deployed, that you will vote for it?

MD: Oh, I certainly would. I would think, though, that this will not be necessary. I just...it's hard for me to envision why anyone would think that you would have to filibuster in this case, or why they would think it would be, as we defined it in our group of 14, that Lindsey and I were a part of, why we would define it as extraordinary circumstances.

HH: You know, I think if even one more member of that group comes out and says this is not a filibuster occasion, it's over. I don't think the Democrats will attempt to then, because enough Senators will be on the record as supporting the Constitutional option.

This may not be the explicit addition to which Hugh refers, but the original Republican sellout sounded as though he would not oppose the Byrd option, if it came down to it. Senator John McCain, who became the first Republican to announce that he would oppose the rule change during the spring and later helped form the Gang of 14 to avoid the confrontation, told Sean Hannity that he wanted to wait until the hearings to make up his mind, but that at this point he didn't see any exceptional circumstances either.

That at least sounds like an abstention -- giving the Republicans a 50-49 split at worst on the Byrd option. Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins will probably never vote for the Byrd option, but John Warner will probably go with Frist, especially on a Supreme Court nominee like Alito. Even if he doesn't, the re-enlistment of DeWine and Graham makes the passage of the rule change inevitable.

That, of course, will keep it from getting invoked altogether. Despite the hue and cry coming today from Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, the rest of the Democrats will not follow them over a cliff merely to protect this swing seat, not with the midterms around the corner and two successive losses in the electoral cycle due to Dacshle's strategy of obstructionism. Perhaps they would have tried it while Bush's approval ratings kept dropping -- but that trend has reversed itself after the Miers withdrawal, which reached a two-week high on Rassmussen's daily polling. That indicates that a significant part of Bush's drop may have come from his own base after the Miers nomination inspired a massive but short-lived outpouring of criticism from the right.

With his numbers coming up after the Miers withdrawal and the prospect of Iraqi security taking over Iraq by the midterm elections, the last thing Democrats need is more obstructionism on which the GOP can attack the red-state Senate Democrats in the election. They have a disadvantage already, and one of the three GOP seats that they could gain next year is an almost certain vote against the Byrd option (Chaffee). They run the risk of not only losing three more seats to the Republicans, but also losing one more "no" vote on a rule change that would disallow the filibuster on a later attempt -- which they will need if Bush gets a third opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice.

Again, if most of the Democrats remain rational, they will make lots of noise but fail to fulfill a filibuster. In the end, they will have to take Alito and bitterly rue their decision to abandon Miers when they could have supported her and kept her nomination alive. They made the choice -- especially Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer -- to publicly ridicule Miers and her answers to the Judiciary Committee after Reid personally suggested Miers to Bush. They helped set the table for Alito, and now they should consider themselves fortunate not to have to square off against Janice Rogers Brown.

First Mate Update, Day 4

The First Mate had a pretty good day today. Her fever stayed mostly down, although her cough hasn't improved much. The doctors have decided to install a semipermanent shunt under her arm for IVs, as her veins keep giving them problems and she will likely need home IVs for a while to deal with the aftermath of the pneumonia. We think she'll get released some time tomorrow, but no one can tell me that for sure. She's itching to get the heck out of the hospital, but it isn't for lack of attentive and excellent care. She's been in very good hands at Fairview University at the U of M campus. We always feel safe and optimistic when they're on the case.

I'll give you all an update tomorrow.

Save Our Reefs -- From Greenpeace!

Greenpeace has set out on a global cruise with its converted fishing trawler, The Rainbow Warrior, to highlight its promotion of Kyoto-like policies to combat what it sees as global warming, and uses coral reef degradation as a significant part of its evidence of the climate theory. It turns out, however, that The Rainbow Warrior itself presents a more clear and present danger to coral reefs than warm water:

Greenpeace is to be fined after its flagship Rainbow Warrior II damaged a coral reef in the central Philippines during a climate change awareness campaign, marine park rangers said.

The ship and its crew were assessed a 640,000-peso (11,600-dollar) fine after the 55-meter (180-foot) motor-assisted schooner ran aground at the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park on Monday, park manager Angelique Songco told AFP.

The ship's bow sliced through a reef formation measuring 160 square meters (1,722 square feet), she added.

The biggest irony in this story? It turns out that the Manila reef that they wanted to highlight actually has none of the damage that Greenpeace predicted. They had expected to find bleaching and other evidence of warm-water damage to the living coral, but instead discovered that the coral remained alive and healthy -- except where the Rainbow Warrior managed to kill a chunk out of it, thanks to Greenpeace's navigational skills.

When asked about their scientific discovery, Greenpeace replied that global warming is "an extremely complicated science." It gets a lot more complicated when its advocates destroy the evidence that contraindicates their hypotheses.

Sorry About Comments Being Down (Updated)

I understand that comments have been down all day -- it appears to be a Typepad issue. This is my first time logging in since this morning, so I haven't had much of a chance to look into it. I'll see when they expect the problem to get resolved and get back to everyone ASAP.

In the meantime, if you're looking for some interactive fun, take Hugh Hewitt's poll on the Alito nomination. Should the Byrd option get invoked if the Democrats filibuster Alito? Let Hugh know what you think!

UPDATE: Looks like they're up and running now.

Will The UN Stand Up To Syria?

The New York Times thinks so -- they report today that the Bush administration's alliance with France against the Assad regime will get the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that will impose tough economic sanctions if Syria refuses to fully cooperate with the investigation into the Rafik Hariri assassination. The Russians and the Chinese, who both had made noises about vetoing any such resolution, have been convinced to sideline themselves:

Security Council diplomats worked out final details on Sunday on a tough resolution against Syria, an action that will forcefully step up international pressure on the country's embattled president, Bashar al-Assad, and deepen his government's struggle to ward off increasing isolation.

Diplomats from the resolution's three co-sponsors, Britain, France and the United States, said they expected passage on Monday and did not foresee a veto from either China or Russia, the two countries most reluctant to punish Syria.

The resolution threatens Syria with economic penalties if it does not give full cooperation to the United Nations investigation that has identified high-ranking security officials as suspects in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.

The measure also orders Syria to take into custody and make available to the investigators people they suspect of involvement in the killing.

If Assad has to turn over the suspects, one of two things will happen, both bad for the opthalmologist who fails to see the writing on the wall. Either he refuses and the sanctions drop onto an already shaky Syrian economy, or he agrees and his political cover deserts him -- both a prelude to a coup.

After losing Lebanon for economic exploitation, the Syrians cannot afford any more economic hurdles and will not handle this kind of outside assault. The collapse of the Syrian economy will force the monied interests out of the country, and those have provided Assad with most of his power base. Assad doesn't generate the same kind of fear his father did, and that means his enemies will not find themselves cowed merely by his personality the way they might have with his father.

Turning over the suspects, of course, means coughing up his own family and the people at the top of the military intelligence apparatus. Before that happens, the military will likely have something to say about protecting its own, especially after suffering the humiliation of the withdrawal from Lebanon just this year. That looks like actual suicide, rather than political suicide.

If the Bush administration can get this through the UNSC, we may see radical changes in Syria in the next few weeks. The West should be prepared for it.

Graham: Forget The Filibuster

In a New York Times report that preceded the nomination of Samuel Alito, one of the Republican Gang of 14 warned the Democrats that any political objections to Alito or any other nominee would not rise to the level of "exceptional circumstances," and that a filibuster would break the agreement that kept the Byrd option off the table:

Mr. Reid had already said he would object to the selection of Judge Luttig or Judge Owen. And on Sunday, he did not rule out the possibility that Democrats would try to block a nominee by a filibuster or refusing to close debate and vote. "We are going to do everything we can" to see that the president names "somebody that's really good," Mr. Reid said.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Mr. Graham's warning was significant because he played a crucial role earlier this year in helping block a Republican effort to change the Senate rules - known as the nuclear option - so that Democrats could not filibuster judicial nominees. His comments on Sunday indicated that this time, he would support that rule change; Democrats have threatened to retaliate with a battle that could snarl Senate business for months.

As I mentioned below, Reid caused this problem in part because he did nothing to rescue his own suggestion for the court opening until Miers withdrew her nomination. He had specifically mentioned Miers as a compromise candidate that Democrats would not oppose, and then allowed Schumer and Leahy to belittle her responses in an echo of the conservative opposition that quickly coalesced around Miers. Reid and his caucus could have rescued the most moderate candidate they were likely to see from this administration. The Democratic delight in Bush's predicament over the last three weeks undoubtedly played a part in the President's decision to discount any further advice from Harry Reid.

The Democrats might try to filibuster, but his candidacy does not have the same fire that may have come with Janice Rogers Brown. The Democrats feared a Brown appointment; they would have had to do a character assassination on a jurist with a clearly inspirational life story as well as a solid track record and a strong conservative record. Alito has a more mild personality and will come across much like John Roberts in the hearings, but his self-effacing style will still have some bite. Building a hearing record for obstructionist mischief on the floor will probably blow up in the faces of the Judiciary Democrats, especially Kennedy, Schumer, and Biden, who made themselves look like idiots during the Roberts hearings.

I expect that the Democrats will get 30-35 votes in favor of a filibuster once Alito gets out of committee. If they do consider a filibuster, too many of them will realize that Stevens might get replaced during this term (he's 85 years old). They need that potential stop on Senate business to protect a genuinely liberal seat on the Court -- and enough of them won't agree to tossing it aside before the 2006 elections, when they might narrow the gap in the Senate, in order to keep Alito off the bench. They also won't want to fight over obstructionism again during the next cycle, or the Democrats might well lose more Senate seats in the midterms.

Expect Alito to get confirmed, 65-35.

Alito Gets The Nod

President Bush will nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor, the third nominee for this seat. The AP and Fox News reports that the New Jersey jurist and former prosecutor had topped George Bush's list during his last round of deliberations, but had lost out to the now-withdrawn Harriet Miers when Bush decided to try choosing someone outside of the "judicial monastery":

Bush believes that Alito has not only the right experience and conservative ideology for the job, but he also has a temperament suited to building consensus on the court. A former prosecutor, Alito has experience off the bench that factored into Bush's thinking, the officials said.

While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush's allies on the right, Democrats have served notice that his nomination would spark a partisan brawl. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems."

Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a 55-year-old jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since former President George H.W. Bush seated him there in 1990.

Of course, the Democrats blew their one opportunity to get a moderate on the bench during the Bush administration by waiting until Miers withdrew before defending her. Prior to that, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy took great pains to call her questionnaire response "insulting" and echoing conservative complaints that her resume seemed too lightweight for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Had they pledged to support her, Bush likely would have allowed her to coast through the hearings to a floor vote despite the dissatisfaction on the right.

Now Bush has nominated a jurist with a solid track record and a reputation for a scholarly and consistent approach to Constitutional issues. However, unlike some of the other people on the list, such as Janice Rogers Brown, Alito does not produce a knee-jerk reaction on the Left. The two organizations that have pushed the disastrous obstructionist strategy for the Democrats, People for the American Way and Alliance for Justice, don't even have a ready profile for opposition to Alito, despite his long residence on conservative short lists.

On the other hand, Alito doesn't always produce rulings that please the Right, which sometimes wishes for activism when it should be pleased with originalism. USA Today shows Alito's libertarian streak in a July profile highlighted by Michelle Malkin:

Some observers say that Alito cannot be easily pigeon-holed. In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. "Sam struck that down as a violation of free speech," Kmiec says. "That's not a conservative outcome."

Alito, at 55, has the possibility of providing 20-30 years of jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, meaning that he and John Roberts have a real opportunity to turn the court back from its decades-long flirtation with supplanting the Legislature and turning itself into a strange American version of the Iranian Guardian Council. In this nomination, Bush may have hit the home run we wanted with the first nomination. Democrats may well try obstructionism, but they stand to lose the filibuster if they try -- and if John Paul Stevens steps down or dies during the next two years, the path will open up for Janice Rogers Brown to take his place.

The Myth Of Dragging Wilson's Wife Into The Niger Case

Earlier today, I listened to "Late Edition" on CNN and heard Wolf Blitzer interviewing Gary Bauer about the Plame case. Normally that would cause me to either fall asleep from apathy or change the channel to something more interesting -- perhaps a re-run of pro bowling on ESPN XXIV. Before I reached the remote, however, I heard this exchange and my jaw hit the floor:

BLITZER: But even if there were no criminal -- if there was nothing criminal about the release of the Valerie Plame, was it appropriate for senior officials in the Bush -- Bush White House, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, to be talking about Joe Wilson's wife instead of simply arguing with him over the merits of the case.

BAUER: Well, Joe Wilson's wife -- they have their own political agenda, which I think is fairly obvious as we have watched this unfold in recent months...

BLITZER: Well, we don't know what her agenda was, if any. We know what Joe Wilson's political views were. He wrote about them in the New York Times.

BAUER: But one of the things we may find out, however, as this unfolds and the trial is held and so forth, is what some of the agendas were of everybody involved...

BLITZER: But do you feel comfortable, do you feel comfortable with the very narrow issue of -- for example, some people that have problems with you, and they say, well, let's go to his -- let's see what his wife is up to, and we'll try to drag her into this?

BAUER: But, Wolf, in this case, his wife allegedly played a role in sending him on a mission that ended up in a very real way being used to undermine the president's desires in foreign policy areas...

BLITZER: So you don't have a problem dragging her into this?

BAUER: Well, I would have trouble attacking somebody's spouse if that spouse had nothing to do with the controversy. I'm arguing that in fact she did have something to do with the controversy. Look, this is a tough city...

BLITZER: I'm going to move on to Harriet Miers...

BAUER: Sure.

BLITZER: ... and the Supreme Court. So even if no criminal law was broken, the fact that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby spoke about Valerie Plame with reporters, that's O.K. as far as you're concerned?

"Dragging her into this?" Does Blitzer ever do any research or real reporting, or does he just read off of notecards at this point? The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made this quite clear in their unanimous report on the use of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Plame didn't get dragged into this controversy by the Bush administration -- she initiated the entire event by getting her husband a job to investigate the Niger data, based on the CIA's curiousity about the British intelligence on the subject.

If anyone other than Plame bears responsibility for Plame's outing, it's her martyr-playing husband, Joe Wilson. As I've written before, Wilson repeatedly lied about how he got his assignment and why. The SSCI did not get fooled:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

Wilson had told Nicholas Krystof and William Pincus, and later insisted publicly, that Dick Cheney had sent him. But it turns out that Cheney never asked the CIA to investigate the report, just to let him know what they had on the subject. That idea apparently originated within the CIA -- possibly with Plame herself. Her written memo makes it clear that she selected her husband for this mission, a strange idea unless she wanted to make sure she knew what kind of report would come back. The CIA, oddly, never required Wilson to sign a non-disclosure agreement, usually considered automatic when dealing with outsiders on agency missions.

And what did Wilson find? He found out that the Iraqis had indeed attempted to negotiate for yellowcake uranium, according to the Nigerien Prime Minister. Again, the SSCI report contradicts practically everything Wilson wrote or leaked after his return:

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Niger exports four commodities: cowpeas, onions, livestock, and yellowcake uranium. The Iraqis would not need secret negotiations to purchase the first three from Niger, and the poverty-racked Nigeriens would gladly have worked on sales of those commodities.

None of this should consist of breaking news to anyone -- anyone, that is, except the addled Wolf Blitzer at CNN. I have plenty more at my earlier post explaining why Joe Wilson has absolutely no credibility on WMD or Niger, and how his wife played a key role, if possibly unwitting, in getting false information leaked to the press through her loudmouth husband. The notion of either of them as victims is laughably absurd.

UPDATE: For those who think the SSCI got it wrong, the indictment of Scooter Libby makes it clear that Plame got Wilson the mission to Niger (page 4, points 6 & 7, h/t CQ commenter ROA). The only argument that has come out from anyone saying anything different was a Washington Post article from August, which was anonymously sourced. Unfortunately for the "senior CIA officer" serving as that source, the SSCI has in their possession a written memorandum from Plame making the recommendation -- which, if you read the post above, you would already know.

Why isn't Wilson getting charged with lying to Congress in the SSCI investigation? Probably because he knew better than to lie about his assignment while under oath. The SSCI report makes that much clear as well; he admits that the Nigerien PM told him that the Iraqis tried to buy the yellowcake and elides the point about his wife as much as he can without committing perjury. Too bad Scooter Libby wasn't bright enough to do the same thing.

Gomermas?

The long-awaited Gomery Inquiry report comes out on Tuesday, November 1st, and already the politicians have begun to believe that no one outside of Ottowa will notice or care. At least, that's what the Liberals hope and the Tories fear, as Canada's worst political corruption case seems destined to slide into oblivion due to scandal fatigue:

Stephen Harper would have you think it's all up to Jack Layton to help him pull down the government next week after Mr. Justice John Gomery's sponsorship report. The New Democrats would rather you believe that Mr. Harper's the coward for promising not to force an election to be held over the Christmas holidays.

And the Bloc Québécois says it would be happy to participate in an election at any time, before or after Judge Gomery's report.

But behind the bravado, all three opposition parties privately suggest that no one really wants to pull the pin after Judge Gomery releases his long-awaited report in the sponsorship scandal next Tuesday, and that the report will not blame Prime Minister Paul Martin.

No one really expected Gomery to implicate Martin, however, as the public testimony never quite touched Martin specifically. It doesn't mitigate the fact that his predecessor and his party took full advantage of a money-laundering and political payoff system it created specifically to extend its power and its grip on the Commons. The lack of outrage from Canadians shows that the Liberals may have scored on their calculated strategy to keep postponing their day of reckoning. The voters appear dissatisfied with the Liberals' performance during Gomery, but unwilling to put the Tories in charge as a consequence.

Unfortunately, the Tories have not had much success in finding an effective partner in pushing for new elections -- and at times, they have appeared as though they're not terribly interested in bringing down the Martin government. They allowed themselves to get outfoxed in the spring, when their polling had them riding highest, and the setbacks affected the confidence that the Canadian electorate had in Tory leadership. Now they have three parties willing to pull the plug on the Grits, but none of them can come up with a formula for the necessary no-confidence motion.

Can the Canadian electorate trust a coalition that clearly could demand elections on the basis of Adscam and corruption in general but for whatever reason fails to do so? It seems that such an outcome would automatically neuter Adscam as an effective argument against Liberal government and give away the best case for removing the Martin executive. With an overwhelming majority in the Commons between the three opposition parties, their failure to act implicitly endorses the average Canadian's apathy about corruption and undermines their best case for a change.

After Tuesday, we will know if the Tories mean business.

Hospiblogging Update

Not much change today -- the First Mate is resting a bit more comfortably, and we still haven't heard a final diagnosis from the lung docs. My guess is that we won't hear anything until tomorrow, as it takes at least 24 hours to study the cultures. In the meantime, they're giving her the kill-everything-but-the-patient drug regime just to make sure they're covering their bases, and it's doing some good; her fever has dropped to 99, almost normal. It hasn't improved her cough at all, though.

Thanks again for the thoughts and prayers. The FM brightens up every time I mention how many of you have been kind enough to send your notes of concern. She wants me to send her greetings back to all of you, and her thanks as well as mine. More updates later ...

We've Heard This Before

The Palestinian triangle offense continues apace in Gaza. They have gone to their usual Plan B when they get caught at it -- they declare that one of the three factions has agreed to cease attacking Israel, and expect the Israelis and the rest of the world to celebrate it. Today, that comes in the form of a statement assuring observers that Islamic Jihad has agreed not to shoot rockets into Israel, but that wasn't what started the Israeli response that killed several IJ leaders this past week:

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip have agreed to halt rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinian Interior Ministry officials said Sunday.

The halt in rocket fire comes after days of airstrikes and artillery fire by the Israeli army aimed at the Islamic Jihad militant group. Palestinian officials said the declaration was expected to bring an end to the Israeli attacks.

The Interior Ministry officials spoke on condition of anonymity, pending the release of an official statement later in the day. Palestinian factions, including the militant groups, were scheduled to meet Sunday night.

Earlier Sunday, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz vowed to wage war on Islamic Jihad until its capabilities are wiped out.

The suicide bombing in Israel that killed five in Hadera started the Israeli offensive against IJ, and they have the right idea in ensuring that they do enough damage to IJ and the territory that harbors them to keep them from trying it again soon. The Palestinians offer nothing more than the same tired rhetoric of truces and cease-fires that it either cannot or will not guarantee. They want the cease-fires to be unilateral -- that Israel stop responding to attacks from their proxy partners in terror.

The time has long passed for the West to insist that the Palestinian Authority cease this useless prattle, and either take control of the territory or find itself disqualified from any further recognition as a partner for peace. When the Palestinians tire of war, they will elect people who want peace. If they want a genocidal conflict -- and their continuing support of Hamas and Fatah indicates that they do -- they should get it and see which end of such policies they receive as a result. Until the Palestinians want peace instead of total war, all of this negotiation is clearly a waste of time and effort.

Oh, Were These The Jobs Americans Don't Want?

The Los Angeles Times takes a long, hard look today at Mara Salvatrucha, the international criminal conspiracy that uses illegal immigration into the US both as a fundraiser and as a staging ground for the most hard-core gangsterism currently seen on the streets. MS-13, as the Central American-based syndicate is better known, goes back to the last amnesty offered by the United States and now has its tentacles throughout North and Central America. The US efforts to interdict the gangsters have been laughable at best:

On a sweltering afternoon, an unmarked white jetliner taxies to a remote terminal at the international airport here and disgorges dozens of criminal deportees from the United States. Marshals release the handcuffed prisoners, who shuffle into a processing room.

Of the 70 passengers, at least four are members of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, a gang formed two decades ago near MacArthur Park west of the Los Angeles skyline. ...

But a deportation policy aimed in part at breaking up a Los Angeles street gang has backfired and helped spread it across Central America and back into other parts of the United States. Newly organized cells in El Salvador have returned to establish strongholds in metropolitan Washington, D.C., and other U.S. cities. Prisons in El Salvador have become nerve centers, authorities say, where deported leaders from Los Angeles communicate with gang cliques across the United States.

A gang that once numbered a few thousand and was involved in street violence and turf battles has morphed into an international network with as many as 50,000 members, the most hard-core engaging in extortion, immigrant smuggling and racketeering. In the last year, the federal government has brought racketeering cases against MS-13 members in Long Island, N.Y., and southern Maryland.

How did the United States allow such a large-scale criminal enterprise grow in its own yard? Lax immigration enforcement, politically-correct policing policies, and a wink-nudge attitude towards garnering cheap labor for business gave everyone an incentive to look the other way while the worst of the wave of immigrants transformed themselves from a violent street gang to a terrorist organization bent on personal enrichment rather than political activity. For an example of the cluelessness of American border policy, the Times provides this anecdote:

Cruz-Mendoza has been riding the merry-go-round for eight years.

He was a minor when he was deported in 1997 and again in 1998, federal immigration officials said.

In December 2003, he was convicted of attempted robbery, after he shoved a woman into a fence while trying to steal her purse at a South Los Angeles bus stop, court records show. As he demanded money, she said, he made threatening gestures and reached into his pocket, where police found a six-inch steak knife when he was arrested shortly thereafter.

In March 2004, he pleaded guilty to a second felony of drug possession, which was dismissed in a sentencing deal for the attempted robbery.

After serving little more than a year in jail, Cruz-Mendoza was deported for a third time in January, records and interviews show.

U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested him in Arizona a month later. At that point, he could have been charged with a felony for reentering the country after deportation, which could have landed him in federal prison for as long as 20 years.

Instead, federal court records show he struck another plea deal with the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona, admitting to a "petty offense" of being in the country illegally. He was ordered to serve 90 days and pay a $10 fine, and was put on the July flight to San Salvador.

Small wonder that people continue to flood across the border in waves numbering millions every year. Why bother obeying the law when even the authorities don't bother enforcing it? While a good portion of these people want nothing more than economic opportunity, their flight enables others -- in some cases, their children -- to join MS-13 or other criminal outfits to exploit the American people who shrug their shoulders at their invasion of the southern border.

Stupidity such as this has enabled MS-13 to grow from a street gang of a few hundred illegals to a syndicate of over 50,000 international hardcases who will commit any crime for its own purposes. Michelle Malkin has long written about the foolishness of American immigration policy in general and specifically about the MS-13 organization on many occasions.

We need to demand that Congress finally do something about the southern border and the flood of illegals that come across it if we purport to take security seriously, especially in this age of terror. We made an impact on the Supreme Court and on spending just by speaking out -- and we need to do so on this issue as well.

Syrian Power Brokers Start To Disperse

As more pressure gets applied to the Bashar Assad regime to answer for the assassination of Rafik Hariri, it looks like the impulse to run has become irresistable for some members of the autocracy. The New York Times reports that Assad's wealthy and powerful cousin, Rami Makhluf, has fled Syria for the UAE as the country becomes more dangerous for those who prop up the erstwhile opthalmologist on his creaky throne:

During a United Nations investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri that threatens the power of President Bashar al-Assad, a first cousin who is one of the most powerful businessmen in Syria has left the country.

While it remains unclear why the president's cousin, Rami Makhluf, left - his allies say he is in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, working on the expansion of his business empire - many people with close connections to the ruling Baath Party say his departure underscores the investigation's threat to the Assad family's grip on power.

Already, the United Nations has implicated important Syrians in the killing of Mr. Hariri in February, and the Syrian government has since been searching for a formula to satisfy its international critics without undermining its authority at home.

The UN has identified members of Assad's family as suspects in the assassination conspiracy, notably his brother Maher and brother-in-law Asef Shakwat, the commander of the military intelligence apparatus that struck fear into Lebanese for a generation. Makhluf, however, wasn't one of the suspects. The Makhlufs come from Assad's mother's family and comprise some of the richest supporters of the regime. Their wealth helps prop Assad the Younger on his perch as the nominal head of the regime.

If the monied class has truly begun to flee Syria, as the Times suggests, it's not because they conspired to assassinate Hariri and want to get out. Those who conspired against Hariri would find it much safer within Syria than outside of it. Until the regime collapses, they will never have to face a trial for his murder, unless Assad coughs them up as part of an arrangement to keep himself in power -- and even then, those big enough to get Assad off the hook at first would inevitably wind up implicating him in the end.

The flight of Makhluf means something entirely different, if it truly is flight. Monied interests will go to the places of greatest security in times of trouble. For decades, the Makhlufs have seen the Assads as that kind of guarantee. If Rami senses that his cousin can no longer provide that kind of assurance, fleeing to the UAE on the notion that he needs to take care of his finances abroad signals that even the closest bonds of support for the Assaf regime have weakened, perhaps fatally for Bashar.

The Times reports also that Bashar may have ordered Rami to leave in order to clean up the culture of corruption and recapture the confidence of the Syrian people. That rumor may sound good in Western circles, but the Syrians don't vote and don't have any freedom to express themselves in Assad's Ba'athist state. The Assads did not come to power or maintain it through populist means, nor are they beloved in any sense of the term. If the Syrians asserted themselves in a populist movement, it wouldn't be to keep Bashar on the throne, and Bashar knows it.

The only analysis of Rami's apparent flight is that the Assad regime has come to an end, for all practical purposes. If the Security Council puts a squeeze on Syria, it will utterly collapse. The Americans and the French should work quickly to ensure that the UN takes some sort of decisive action and that supporters of democratization stand ready to apply the coup de grace that will end the tyranny of the Assads for good -- and replace it with a democratic republic that will further isolate Iran in Southwest Asia.

Charles To Follow Royal Tradition Of Appeasement

What is it about frustrated members of the British royal family who, when unable to garner the throne for themselves, decide to campaign on behalf of genocidal nutcases? After being forced to abdicate the throne in order to marry Wallis Simpson, Edward Windsor flirted with the Nazis to such an extent that the British thought they might have to forcibly remove him from Spain. Churchill had to order him to the Bahamas to separate the Duke from German agents.

Now we have Prince Charles, the man who would be King if his mother would just let him, deciding that George Bush just doesn't understand how wonderful Islam truly is -- and wants to travel to the United States to deliver a lecture on the Religion of Peace^TM:

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.

May I suggest that if the Prince wants to kiss the rear ends of imams that he continue to do so in his own country. We're not beating Muslims in the streets here. We understand that moderate, law-abiding Muslims don't represent any problem; we have many here who contribute to our society when they assimilate and accept religious tolerance. If Charles wants to debate traditions of religious freedom, perhaps he would like to bone up on a little bit of British history -- including the debacle the British created in Northern Ireland, which continues to this day.

Our problem lies with Muslims who don't accept Western values of religious tolerance -- those Islamists who demand that infidels have no rights except for those of servants of Islamist masters, who consider the stoning of women to be justice for exercising some sexual and cultural freedom, who behead teenagers for going to Catholic school -- that's where the problem lies. Instead of coming to the one nation that has traditionally led the world in promoting the peaceful practice of all religions within a single culture, perhaps Charles should travel to places like Saudi Arabia and Iran to defend Christianity. Better yet, travel to any Arabic nation and defend Judaism. After all, Charles says he wants to be the Defender of All Faiths. Why not start in places where those who practice their faiths get murdered for it with their government's blessings?

I'll tell you why; because it's easy to be the Defender of All Faiths in places where making that argument won't result in danger for the defender. Charlie's taking the cheap shot because he hasn't the balls to go lecture the truly intolerant on their murderous policies that oppress competing faiths. He's a dilettante that even his mother won't trust with a meaningless crown for more than a few years at the end of his life, and this is an excellent example of why. (via The Anchoress, and several CQ readers)