In addition to the Moussaoui sentencing mess (he pled guilty, and the gov't can't get its act together to argue coherently that he deserves death, which is the only reason this charade is taking place in Alexandria, VA), the botched Motown prosecutions, and the watered-down Padilla indictment, in December 05 a Florida jury returned not-guilty findings in the trial of a professor over ties to Palestinian terror. While the jury deadlocked on a number of issues, the government reportedly had building the case against Sami al-Arian for 10 years.

-Michael Davis

Hmmm. Wadham's first response to the macaca flap was an expletive, according to the Washington Post:

"But the apology, which came hours after Allen's campaign manager dismissed the issue with an expletive and insisted the senator has "nothing to apologize for," did little to mollify Webb's campaign or Sidarth, who said he suspects Allen singled him out because his was the only nonwhite face among about 100 Republican supporters."(Wash. Post 8/15/06

I'm glad to see that Allen's campaign manager sees fit to expand on his initial take on the matter.

Michael Davis

Yesterday the NYT runs a story on the demise of the freak show. Today, OJ gets ready to talk on Fox about how he would have killed his wife if he had killed his wife. Freak shows aren't on the wane. They're on Fox, and OJ is the midget lady with a beard.

There's been a tremendous evolution in how hardliners view our foreign entanglements. I seem to remember a bumper sticker from the 70's -- Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. -- which was directed at the Communist/VC/Vietnamese. Rush's bumper-sticker policy pronouncement seems to be a softening of the old hard line drop a nuke on 'em solution. The bloke's actually gone organic; now no nuclear intervention is needed whatsoever -- just let them kill themselves.

When you don't step back from a brink, you make a great step forward.

The Post cannot even get the sourced stuff right:

Correction to This Article [2/9/07]

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

The only reason I bring it up is that it is about "intelligence" as well.

Well, if the parents aren't doing it, the children certainly are. One of my fave sites is the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang. It will stand a few adult hairs on end:

http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=index&d=4

Were the explosives diffused, or defused by the military? I'm confused.

Sounds like he might have some anger management issues himself from this item in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2079878,00.html

Since first reading of Karl Kraus years ago, I still find his early 20th century views prescient.

This could be the plot of Tom's cartoon:

How is the world ruled and led to war? Diplomats lie to journalists and believe these lies when they see them in print.

This is the plot of our Iraq war policy:

War: first, one hopes to win; then one expects the enemy to lose; then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering; in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.

And this is the plot of our political damnation:

When a culture feels that its end has come, it sends for a priest.

Cheers,

I guess the publishers couldn't title the male version of the book "Skinny Dick" ...

All I can say Patrick, is you're lucky you don't have a concussion after getting lippy with a TSA officer:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8754245&ch=4226713&src=news

Perhaps their names are Bouvard & Pecuchet.

I see no information science entries in Flaubert's Dictionary of Accepted Ideas, but he does note that mathematics dry up the emotions; and when told of a large fortune, be sure to ask, yes,but is it secure?

That's the only question I have.

I stand corrected on the school.

According to Yoo's faculty profile at Berkeley Law:

John Choon Yoo is not teaching any courses in Spring 2009.

Joan, my one minor gripe is that I think you have one metaphor wrong. Republican leaders aren't racing to kiss Limbaugh's ring. They're groveling brown-nosers performing in public without shame.