Time to shut up

What is this, a race to see who can say the stupidest things? I thought Sen. Obama's public suggestion that the United States unilaterally invade an ally possessing nuclear weapons was dumb. Rep. Tom Tancredo had to go and up the ante, suggesting that we nuke Mecca and Medina. What is going on here? can someone please have some decency and shut up about things they clearly have no understanding about? Even Sen. Clinton - who's supposed to be the experienced one - is talking about the possibility of sending nukes into Pakistan to take out Al Qaeda. So far, it looks like Rep. Tancredo is winning the stupidest comment race, with Sen. Obama just ahead of Sen. Clinton a short way back.

I'm waiting on Sen. Gravel or Rep. Paul to go next. Maybe Tommy Thompson?

U.S. State Department cringes as presidential hopefuls muddy diplomatic waters
PR Inside

WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.

Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.

"Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do," said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.

First it was Barak Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.

The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo's comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.

I have to agree with Hillary

More than just saying that I agree that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief, I am inclined to agree with Sen. Clinton's stated stances here as she criticizes Sen. Obama. Quite frankly, he's terribly raw when it comes to foreign policy. If he is going to be President some day, he really should get a bit more experience. The same, of course, goes for Sen. Edwards. The problem with Sen. Clinton involves her domestic initiatives and the fact that, while she is saying one thing right now as she's going after Sen. Obama, she would be speaking in a dramatically different manner were her opponent a Republican. The fact that you cannot tell where she stands on topic is really disconcerting to be as a citizen.

Presidential Race Goes Nuclear
ABC News

The leading Democratic candidates for president sparred with each other over the issue of nuclear weapons Thursday and the result was pure heat.

In another broadside indicating the increasingly heated race for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., implied Thursday that comments made by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were careless and unpresidential.

Sen. Clinton was referring to Obama's statement earlier in the day that he had ruled out using nuclear weapons against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Clinton also suggested Obama's high-profile speech earlier in the week in which he said would be willing to invade Pakistan to attack high-profile al Qaeda targets, given actionable intelligence, was inappropriate, further evidence that she is painting her challenger as unprepared for the job of commander in chief.

Regarding terrorist targets in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Obama told The Associated Press Thursday: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He then added: "Involving civilians."

Seeming to think twice about his response, Obama then said, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Clinton, asked about his remarks Thursday afternoon, took issue with them.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Quote of the Day

"I did nothing other than go to dinner with a friend who introduced me to this girl. Since it was late, she came to bed with me. How many politicians go to bed with young girls?...So politicians in the UDC do not make love? Of course, I recognize Christian values. But what has that got to do with going with a prostitute? It is a personal matter. This affair has nothing to do with family values. I cannot be branded a bad father and a bad husband simply because after five or six days away from home, an occasion presented itself."

- Cosimo Mele, Minister of the Italian Parliament and a member of the Christian Democrat Union political party

House "killing" CAFE increase is jujitsu

The House removed CAFE increases from the energy bill. While the natural inclination among the auto workers who would be harmed most by the CAFE increase is jubilance, a closer look at the issue would suggest a very strong note of caution. The CAFE increases still remain in the Senate bill and the Democratic leadership which will appoint the conference committee is still very strongly pro-CAFE. Most likely, this is the typical two-faced political jujitsu that Washington is famous for and disgusts Americans so deeply: this gives Democrats like Rep. Dingell who represent districts where auto workers live the opportunity to save face with their constituents while passing the CAFE increases they secretly support. Rep. Dingell won't have to commit to a public spectacle of standing up to the Democratic powers, he gets to claim victory in removing CAFE, and will still get the CAFE increases he's personally committed to seeing.

House puts off tougher fuel rules
The Detroit News

WASHINGTON -- House leaders decided Wednesday to put off a potentially divisive fight over auto fuel-economy rules, leaving until September the debate over how high a hurdle they'll set for the embattled domestic carmakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said late Wednesday that the House will not consider competing proposals to change Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards when the House takes up a comprehensive energy bill this week. The House is expected to vote on the package this week.

The decision means the Big 3 automakers have dodged, for now, passage of a tough set of CAFE standards proposed by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., which would have boosted vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. It has wide support among House Democrats, including Pelosi.

Markey agreed to withdraw his proposal, offered as an amendment to the energy bill, as did Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., who had offered a weaker set of mileage standards favored by the auto industry.

Despite the reprieve, it is unclear whether Wednesday's decision to delay the debate is good news, in the long run, for the Big 3. It's possible the issue won't be resolved until a House-Senate conference committee meets to iron out differences between the competing versions of the bill. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who generally favor tougher standards, will appoint members of the conference committee.

True colors about to be shown

Sean Penn recently toured Venezuela's barrios. We're shortly going to see if he has any intellectual integrity at all. If he can see the squalor that Chavez's government has put the poor Venezuelans into without saying something, we'll know he clearly is nothing more than a tool for those who are enemies of our country.

Sean Penn Praised by Venezuela's Chavez
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Sean Penn for his critical stance against the war in Iraq, saying the two chatted by phone and soon plan to meet in person.

Chavez said Penn traveled to Venezuela this week wanting to learn more about the situation in the country and walked around some of Caracas' poor barrios on his own.

"Welcome to Venezuela, Mr. Penn. What drives him is consciousness, the search for new paths," Chavez said Wednesday in a televised speech. "He's one of the greatest opponents of the Iraq invasion."

Chavez read aloud from a recent open letter by Penn to President Bush in which the actor condemned the Iraq war and called for Bush to be impeached, saying the president along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are "villainously and criminally obscene people."

The socialist president, who shares those views, said he and Penn talked by phone—"with my bad English but we understood each other more or less."

That's going to improve our standing

Barack Obama’s presenting a new, apparently tougher, foreign policy plan. So, Sen. Obama would unilaterally pull troops from Iraq – despite the desires of allies in the region, U.N. resolutions supporting the mission, the support of the Iraqi government, and regardless of his acknowledgement that doing so would result in ethnic cleansing and genocide – and would then invade an ally unilaterally without U.N. approval, without any direct threat from them, despite the fact that they have been cooperating closely with the U.S. and have nuclear weapons.

Nice.

Obama to Deliver Bold Speech About War on Terror
ABC News

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's mention of an "al Qaeda leadership meeting" refers to a classified military operation planned in early 2005 to kill al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in Pakistan's tribal regions. First reported in The New York Times earlier this month, the mission was "aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials."

In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush. It comes at a time in Obama's campaign when the freshman senator is drawing more financial support from more voters than any other candidate, though he has yet to vault from his second-place position in the polls. One of the reasons for that is that the Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seen as more experienced and in some ways stronger, a perspective Obama wishes to change.

The speech, to be delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., seems an attempt by Obama to ramp up his campaign to the next phase, where he hopes to seem not only a youthful idealist, but a president who would pursue a muscular foreign policy and protect the United States from terrorist attack.

Carl Levin says winning the war is not enough to continue it...

In today’s Detroit Free Press, Senator Carl Levin says that winning the war isn’t enough to continue it. Even if the Iraqi government meets all of its benchmarks, even if the surge is working – Senator Levin still wants to pull out. So, let’s see here, Democrats have committed to pulling out of Iraq even if it would mean turning victory into defeat, even if it would mean jeopardizing progress by their democratic government, even if it would result in genocide, even if allies in the region want the U.S. to stay. It just strikes me as incomprehensible – for U.S. interests, for regional interests, for humanitarian principles – for the Democrats to continue along this line of reasoning.

Levin: Progress isn't reason enough to postpone troop withdrawal
Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Carl Levin says even if Iraqi leaders make political progress before a September report is due and violence continues to decline, it wouldn’t be enough to convince him not to push for a withdrawal of American troops.

With Congress ready to take a month off beginning at the end of this week, Levin spoke to reporters about highlights from the first seven months of the year and discussed his belief that a growing number of Republicans are unwilling to blindly support President George W. Bush’s Iraq war policy.

The Detroit Democrat, who serves as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Iraqi leaders may return from their own recess and make enough political progress toward benchmarks to convince Bush to continue a policy that saw him send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.

“That’s not enough for me,” said Levin, who is expected to renew a push for timetables to begin withdrawing troops when Congress returns to Washington, D.C. in September.

Took long enough

The U.N. has finally approved sending a peacekeeping force to Darfur. Three years ago, Colin Powell was at the U.N. doing everything in his power to try to convince the U.N. to take action. How many people would still be alive if they headed his call at that time instead of waiting three years to act?

It's a good thing that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton don't run the U.N. or else we'd still be waiting.

UN OKs 26,000 Peacekeepers for Darfur
ABC News

The U.N. Security Council approved a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur on Tuesday to try to help end four years of fighting that has killed more than 200,000 people in the conflict-wracked Sudanese region.

The force the first joint peacekeeping mission by the African Union and the United Nations will replace the beleaguered 7,000-strong AU force now on the ground in Darfur no later than Dec. 31. The council urged that the AU-U.N. "hybrid" achieve "full operational capability and force strength as soon as possible thereafter."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called it a "historic and unprecedented operation" that will send "a clear and powerful signal" of help to the people of Darfur.

This explains Robert Byrd...

An odd advice column over at Salon from about a week and a half ago has me thinking. The basic premise of the question is that the individual, having carefully cultivated a "proper, liberal, modern, progressive cover" and is afraid of "blowing it" when people find out he sings racist songs to himself. The songs, apparently, just kind of get stuck in his head and he'd rather they didn't. The advice he's given? Embrace his inner racist, and harness his white guilt to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless.

It's odd, actually, to see. Certainly, there are members of the Liberal Elite who evoke a clear condescension and clear racism in their actions and words but it's strange for someone to just come out and say - if you're a racist, become a Liberal and all will be forgiven.

I've got a stupid racist ditty playing in my head
Salon.com

When I was 12 or so and living in Outer White Generica aka the Tucson suburbs), a friend of mine taught me a racist little ditty...It is now almost 30 years later and that stupid little song has come back with a vengeance. I keep hearing it over and over in my head ("I don' care what de' white mon say..." I'll leave it at that)...

...I've become so paranoid that I'm going to blow my proper, liberal, modern, progressive cover that I'm only making it worse...What if I get caught? Help!

and the response:

Say a man stands behind a counter of steam trays dishing out hot lasagna to folks who have no money and no home and nothing to eat. As he dishes out the food, a little racist ditty from his childhood is running through his head. If we could monitor the music that is playing in his head, would we take that spoon away from him and beat him with it and throw him out of the soup kitchen? Or would we let him ladle out soup to the poor? What does it matter what racist little ditty is playing in your head? What matters is what you do...

...So you've got a stupid song playing in your head. What did you see on your way to work this morning? Did you see any poor people living in the streets? Did you see any people begging for food? Did you see anyone living with open sores because they have no money for medical care? What did you do about that? Did you stop to sing them a song?

...What could it possibly take to care for all these poor people of all races "ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished"? A billion dollars? Ten billion dollars? A hundred billion dollars? What could it take to build a big building in the center of town and give everybody a bed who needs a place to sleep? What could it take to give everybody a good meal who is hungry? Keep it open 24 hours a day. Staff it with ministers, cooks and bouncers. Have drug and alcohol recovery meetings there. Put all the soup kitchens there. Put all the cots there. Put the mayor's office there. Put all the deacons and elders and mullahs and bishops and rabbis there. Put all the columnists and communists and free-marketeers and Christian fundamentalists there. Put everybody there who pretends to give a shit. Put me there. Put us all there. Give us showers and hot soup. Keep us there until we make it work. Do the same thing in every city and town. How hard could that be?..

...Our quivering introspection is a luxury of the very world whose wealth shields us from consequence, whose entertainment keeps us laughing like children, amused and placated while our neighbors starve and sleep on the streets and die of treatable diseases. The personal is personal. Feed somebody...

...It's not you. I'm not blaming you. It's not your fault. None of us can do much on our own. We lack leaders. We lack consensus. Our moral imagination has been hijacked by an entertainment complex far more powerful than any writer or activist. Our publishing industry has been hijacked by soap companies and toy makers. Our churches have become the propaganda wings of political parties. We don't know how to run our own country. We don't know how to get it back. We don't know how to take care of each other.

Why not pretend to do something?

Let me check here – yep, still an 18% poverty rate. Yep, still a social security system which will go bankrupt long before I’m eligible to receive benefits from it. Yep, still 15% of Americans living without health insurance. Yep, still a war going on. Yep, still genocide occurring in Darfur. Yep, still hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cheats every year. Yep, still an educational system which is failing countless children. Yep, still millions of illegal immigrants in the country and thousands more coming in every day. Yep, still problems with energy production and supply. Yep, still millions of Africans with AIDS and hundreds of millions worldwide living in poverty. Yep, Iran is still trying to build nuclear weapons. Yep, Al Qaeda is still trying to kill as many Americans as humanly possible. Congress is doing something to address one or two of these, right?

No, of course not. They want to make another statement vote. This time, trying to impeach Alberto Gonzales for firing U.S. attorneys, which is a power he explicitly has.

Dems Seek Gonzales Impeachment
ABC News

Days before Congress is set to adjourn for its August recess, a group of Democrats on Capitol Hill is seeking an impeachment resolution against embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

On Tuesday, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., sought to introduce the legislation urging the House Judiciary Committee to "investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales, attorney general of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Six other Democrats joined Inslee, a former prosecutor from Washington State. Reps. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., Michael A. Arcuri, D-N.Y., Tom Udall, D-N.M., Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, Ben Chandler, D-Ky., and Dennis Moore, D-Kan., co-sponsored the legislation.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been investigating the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, and the role Gonzales and senior Justice Department officials played in the dismissals.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, denounced the impeachment move, calling it "a misuse of Congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American public's money and time."

"Democrats have ignored this fundamental principle in their own investigation and have chosen instead to engage in a politically motivated campaign to slander the Justice Department and undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement," Smith continued.

The impeachment resolution is viewed by many on Capitol Hill as symbolic and unlikely to get much traction. But it is the latest display of a lack of support for Gonzales, who has faced a series of challenges this year.

The New Prime Minister

It looks like Gordon Brown is proving to be a worthy successor to Tony Blair. Hopefully, his strong stance against genocide will rub off on the Presidential candidates who have said that they're unwilling to utilize U.S. troops to stop genocide in Darfur (Clinton and Obama) or are willing to pull U.S. troops from Iraq even if it causes genocide (Obama).

British PM to Address United Nations
ABC News

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown planned to use a speech Tuesday at the United Nations to press countries, businesses and individuals to back ambitious plans to revive a stalled global development plan.

His call for a push on aid and diplomacy follows a two-day summit with President Bush, where the new British chief pledged support for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan and tough measures to tackle terrorism.

British officials have insisted Brown's foreign policy will be marked by his desire to mix the use of force and sanctions with backing for development and economic aid programs. Brown has called it a balance of "hard power and soft power."

His attempts to lead the international community in efforts to break an impasse on stalled world trade negotiations and on halting violence in Sudan's Darfur region are read by some as a bid to atone for predecessor Tony Blair's unpopular backing for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Brookings Scholars: "...we might win"

Even the liberal Brookings Institute has come around regarding the Iraq Surge. What should be self-evident to everyone paying attention is reflected in the Brookings op-ed in yesterday's New York Times. The Surge is working and stability is coming to Iraq.

A War We Just Might Win
The New York Times

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.

Quote of the Day

"[I]n America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."

- St. George Tucker, Virginia law professor and judge, in annotations of Blackstone's Commentaries of the U.S. Constitution, published in 1803.

Northwest woes

Northwest is having yet another month-end surge in cancelled flights. Not surprisingly, this is leaving customers in the lurch and Northwest is doing next to nothing to help, even those it's their scheduling inabilities which are causing the problems.

There's a voluntary, market-driven solution to this. Many individuals have proposed a "Passenger's Bill of Rights" which has, rightfully, been shot down as an unwarranted intrusion into business which would unduly burden the airlines.
The solution to this is a voluntary "Passenger's Bill of Rights" that airlines can optionally choose to apply or not to their business. Each travel booking website and travel agent would be required to make clear what flights and what airline are following the "Passenger's Bill of Rights" and allow consumers to choose which airlines to utilize. If consumers are willing to pay more for airlines which follow the "Passenger's Bill of Rights", those flights and airlines will be available. If consumers are unwilling to pay more for those flights, airlines and flights would be available to them.

Another month-end surge in cancellations riles Northwest travelers
Detroit Free Press

Northwest Airlines' pattern of cancellations continued Sunday, with more than 200 flights dropped as pilots who were pushed to the limit of hours they are allowed to fly each month stayed home from work.

The airline blamed the pilots, who in turn blamed the airline for failing to address staff shortfalls after it canceled more than 2,000 flights in June, many of them toward the end of the month.

Passengers suffered again Sunday, especially at Detroit Metro Airport.

"It's their own internal problem but they just pass it on to you," said Joe Czarnecki, who was trying to fly to New York with his wife after attending a wedding in Detroit.

The Czarneckis learned through a voice mail that their flight home was canceled and that they were rescheduled on a flight today. Because that would force them to miss work, the couple bought two $500 tickets with Continental for a Sunday flight, only to find out that flight was grounded, too, because of bad weather in the East.

The couple said Northwest's customer service kept disconnecting them because of the high call volume.

"They give you a recording because they don't have any guts," Joe Czarnecki said.

"We're not trying to silence anybody"

Once again, the Liberal Elite show their disdain for the right to free speech. As should surprise no one, Liberal activist groups are doing whatever they legally can to punish Fox News for the views of some of their editorialists. This time, they’re monitoring commercials and then contacting advertisers to try to get them to pull their funding. Of course, even though they’re trying to attack the funding source of the stations due to editorialist views of some of their personalities they are adamant that they’re “not trying to silence anybody”. Because, after all, trying to get ads pulled based on editorial content definitely isn’t “trying to silence anybody.

Home Depot Spokesman Jerry Shields seems to have the right attitude: "We're not in the business of censoring media."

Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers
AP

NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

What is this?

This is appalling.

Spain accused of abusing Africans
Chicago Sun-Times

MADRID, Spain - A human-rights group accused Spain on Thursday of keeping migrant African children in appalling conditions, including windowless "punishment" cells where they are beaten and denied access to toilets.

The report by New York-based Human Rights Watch said the abuses took place in holding facilities on the Canary Islands, which lie off Africa's northwest coast of and been swamped by a surge in African migration in recent years.

More than 900 children -- mostly boys from Senegal and Morocco -- are crowded into four ''prison-like'' detention centers on Spain's Canary Islands.

Immigrants who are caught are returned to their home countries, but the process can take months.

Simone Troller, European children's rights researcher for Human Rights Watch and the report's author, said that under Spanish law, migrant children are not technically allowed to be detained.

In practice, she said, they are ''kept in almost prison-like conditions.'

More U.S. nukes = No Iranian nukes?

In London's Independent, a senior Iranian official confirms that Iran has enough centrifuges running to be able to obtain enough refined nuclear material for a nuclear weapon. They won't, though, for moral reasons. In his words: "What is it good for? If we attack Israeli with one bomb, American would attack us with thousands of bombs. It's suicide."

So, the reason not to build and, more importantly, not to use a nuclear bomb has nothing to do with the moral issues with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians but rather with simple self-interest.

How is it that this doesn't prove the need for the United States to have an overwhelming need for the U.S. to have an overwhelming nuclear arsenal and the requirement that the Administration makes clear that certain circumstances would lead us to use it?

Iran's message is softly spoken, yet clear: It will enrich uranium
The Independent

Iran has issued its strongest signal to date that it will defy UN demands for a suspension of uranium enrichment - a possible route towards a nuclear bomb - threatening to respond to any further sanctions and accusing the Americans of "running away" from negotiations to end the crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme.Iran's chief nuclear negotiator told The Independent yesterday that uranium enrichment was "like breathing" for his country, and that Iran would not halt the spinning centrifuges at its main enrichment plant in Natanz, even if the Bush administration offered security guarantees.

Ali Larijani reports directly to Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and to Iran's radical President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who appointed him. To be granted an interview in the Supreme National Security Council is a rare event for any foreign journalist.

Mr Larijani was unusually forthcoming about his negotiations with the European foreign policy envoy, Javier Solana, who has been trying to coax Iran back to the negotiating table while the UN Security Council prepares a new round of economic sanctions. The Europeans have taken the lead in dealing with Iran, which has not had diplomatic relations with Washington since 1979. They want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiations. This has been rejected. The Iranians say that the last time they agreed to a voluntary suspension, a three-week suspension ended up lasting two and a half years. They say they will not be caught out again.

Asked whether Iran might reconsider its refusal to suspend enrichment if it were to receive security guarantees from America and a promise that the US would not seek regime change, Mr Larijani responded: "We are in no need of US security guarantees. I do not see a relation between these two matters. This example of yours is like saying, 'if the Americans provide you with a security guarantee are you ready to give up breathing?'"

Earmarks in the defense bill? Really?

The Democrats are politicizing spending and sending pork back to their constituents? I thought they were supposed to be ending this sort of thing now that they're in power...

Earmarks in the House defense bill
The Crypt - The Politico

Check out the list of earmark requests in this year's defense spending bill.

Porkbusters.org posted this handy spreadsheet to track what requests are in the House bill that passed out of subcommittee yesterday.

Rep. C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), who chaired the subcommittee last year and previously chaired the full committee, tops the list with 59 projects. Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the subcommittee that oversees defense spending, came in second with 46.

In total, there are 1,776 special projects in the bill that was reported to the full committee -- a coincidental number that conservatives should have plenty of fun with ("It's a spending revolution ... " etc.).

Whatever your take on lawmaker-requested projects, this new era of disclosure sure gives everyone plenty of paper to pore over.

Who wanted the fairness doctrine back?

An AP story about the FCC's decision not to revive the "fairness" doctrine, the author points out that "several Democratic lawmakers" are encouraging its return. Of course they don't mention that principal among the lawmakers are Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

FCC Chair: Fairness Doctrine Not Needed
AP

The Federal Communications Commission has no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine imposing a requirement of balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

Martin, in a letter written this week to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and made public Thursday, said the agency found no compelling reason to revisit its 1987 decision that enforcing the federal rule was not in the public interest.

Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

Pence and other Republicans in both the House and Senate countered by introducing legislation to bar the FCC from reinstating the rule.

Under the doctrine, first instituted in the late 1940s, broadcasters could lose their licenses if they failed to give free airtime to opposing sides on controversial issues.

Caught a trout!

What a surprise! A democratic investigation launched for purely political reasons into conduct which isn't criminal might result in perjury charges. Never expected that...

Democrats urge perjury probe of Gonzales

WASHINGTON - A group of Senate Democrats called Wednesday for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales perjured himself regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and administration dissent over President Bush's domestic surveillance program.

"We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress," four Democratic senators wrote in a letter Wednesday, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

"It has become apparent that the Attorney General has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements" to the Judiciary Committee, they added.

"Safe and competent" snake oil salesman

According to the Daily Mail, there's a rising trend among UK universities to grant degrees in "complimentary medicine." Complementary medicine is, of course, a term used to try to legitimize the use of quackery like herbalism, “natural” remedies, and other unscientific, unproven, ineffective means to treat illness. Of course, the snake oil remedies are defended by the instructors of these classes in order to ensure that the “practitioners are safe and competent.” I’m sure that will help, someone who’s competent with the mystical potions which have no proven effects as they fraudulently peddle them to an ever-increasing market. The other justification? That there are now millions of people who are seeking to buy these products despite huge evidence that they’re worthless. It’s good to know that if you can con enough people into ignoring the mountain of scientific evidence that you’re a fraud you can even get a job at a university teaching other frauds.

Row over surge in 'scandalously un-academic' university courses
The Daily Mail

Universities were today accused of offering "scandalously unacademic" courses such as complimentary medicine to boost their funding.

Spiralling numbers of students are flocking to the courses while scientific disciplines such as anatomy and pharmacy are suffering.

Now angry dons are breaking ranks to claim many so-called soft degree subjects represent a cynical attempt to generate income with little regard for academic standards.

Latest official figures reveal how degree course applications are up 5.3 per cent across the board on last year.

Yet some subjects are registering much steeper rises. Complementary medicine has drawn 31.5 per cent more applicants, so far receiving 1,908.

Physics is up 12.5 per cent but other science subjects have seen relatively modest increases, such as pharmacology, toxicology and pharmacy on 6 per cent. This represents barely any improvement at all, given the 5.3 per cent rise in applications overall.

The figures prompted leading pharmacologist David Colquhoun to accuse universities of "cashing in" on subjects such as complementary medicine.

The professor of pharmacology at University College London, told the Times Higher Education Supplement he was "appalled" by the trend.

"These courses are basically anti-science" he said.

"Universities that run them should be ashamed of themselves."

Look who's stallling now...

I love the audacity of the Democrats accusing the Republicans of stalling on appropriation bills. The idea that the Democratic circus this year – hearings to conduct political fishing expeditions over incidences when no crimes took place and their repeated statement votes about the Iraq war – aren’t to blame for the Congress’s inability to get things done is ridiculous. The Democrats came into the House promising bipartisanship and then immediately launched investigations whose sole purpose was to score political points and hope that someone might perjure himself. Followed that up with a few votes about Iraq whose only meaning were scoring political points and providing propaganda for the enemy, some more hearings, and then more meaningless votes on Iraq and we’re here. They promised to balance the budget, then increase spending. They promised to cut out earmarks, then fill every spending bill as full of earmarks as possible. It’s rather amusing to think that they can pass off this line.

Democrats Say GOP Complaint of Spending 'Shutdown' Strategy Doesn't Add Up
CQ

Republicans are uttering a word that for 12 years has been utterly unspeakable.

Shutdown.

It's a word that can send shudders through those who saw the last one — actually, two — play out after Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The Newt Gingrich-Bill Clinton standoff was so traumatic that since then, neither party has ventured anywhere in that direction.

This year's appropriations tug-of-war between a new majority in Congress and a president of the opposing party does not appear to be headed for a government shutdown, but a rhetorical taboo was lifted when the word became part of the partisan message of the moment.

"The obvious plan of the Democrats is to not do appropriations bills but put everything together in a giant omnibus appropriations bill in a kind of legislative blackmail with all of the policy and increased spending, to in effect threaten the president to either sign the bill or be accused of shutting down the government," Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference, said Wednesday.

President Bush has threatened to veto seven appropriations bills because together they would exceed his discretionary spending limit by more than $20 billion.

Nothing will change

Apparently, the Democrats are starting to realize that they're now about 1/4 of the way through this Congress and they've done nothing of significance, except pass a bill which is sure to increase inflation and unemployment among the poor. Coming into this year, they promised a while host of reforms, claiming that they were going to come to issues in a bipartisan fashion. Of course, they're promptly started pushing insignificant statement votes and their political fishing expeditions trying to nail anyone in the Bush administration with whatever they can - usually, trying to incite perjury when "investigating" incidents where no crimes occurred.

People are going to notice, however, that while they've been trying to score political points they've done nothing to address social security, health care, job creation, the flood of illegal immigrants, the education gap between whites and minorities, the poverty rate, energy policy, or securing our ports and borders. Why bother actually doing something of substance when they can try to exploit the situation for political gain to leverage a democrat into the White House in a year and a half?

Democrats Pushing to Avoid a 'Do-Nothing' Label
The New York Times

Congressional Democrats celebrated the first minimum wage increase in a decade on Tuesday with a festive labor rally across from the Capitol. But they know they will have to accomplish considerably more to avoid the sort of do-nothing labels they hung on Republicans not too long ago.

“It is not enough, but it is a great start,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said as she told the cheering crowd that the wage increase that took effect Tuesday was just one element of a middle-class economic program that includes college tuition help, expanded health care coverage and other emerging proposals.

Democrats hope to post more legislative victories in a few days, including enacting into law some of the remaining recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. They also want to pass a lobbying overhaul that was central to their campaign last year against the “culture of corruption” so they can start their late-summer recess on a high note.

Republicans agree it would represent real progress if Democrats could get those measures through and tee up a few others for the fall. But they are withering in their criticism of what the Democratic majority has — and has not — done since taking power in January.

“They’ve wasted the first seven months by being excessively partisan and creating unnecessary, in my view, disputes with a pretty robust minority of 49,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

Temperment?

Does anyone else think that putting a red panda in an enclosure with big cat cubs is a bad idea? The last time I checked, as big cats grow up they tend to be pretty playful and a 15 pound puma cub can do some serious damage with those claws. I'd be concerned that the pumas might end up playing with the red panda and either injuring or killing it. Probably just my pro-cat stance, though.

Red panda joins feline pals at zoo
Chicago Sun-Times

To the Lincoln Park Zoo, the raccoon-like red panda has the heart of a lion.

The fury creature joined its feline friends Tuesday in a $1.75 million upgraded exhibit at the Kovler Lion House.

"I think that they're really cute," 7-year-old Hadley McCarthy said, admiring the panda and his new roommates: two puma cubs, a trio of long-haired Pallas' cats, a baronial snow leopard and an Afghan leopard.

Grand Jury clears doctor of Katrina mercy killings

When you have a D.A. who feels a grand jury that lets off a murderer did the right thing, you have some serious problems. Dr. Pou and two nurses admitted to injecting four hospital patients with a lethal level of pain killers in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Either the doctor intentionally killed the four patients - and should be imprisoned for the rest of her life - or committed one of the most egregiously gross acts of medical malpractice I've heard of, and should still be imprisoned for manslaughter and barred from practicing medicine.

When in our society did it become acceptable for people to murder the innocent?

Grand jury clears doctor of Katrina mercy killings
Chicago Sun-Times

NEW ORLEANS - A grand jury refused on Tuesday to indict a doctor accused of murdering four seriously ill hospital patients with drug injections during the desperate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, closing the books on the only mercy-killing case to emerge from the storm.

Dr. Anna Pou acknowledged administering medication to the patients but insisted she did so only to relieve pain.

Pou (pronounced ''Poe'') and two nurses were arrested last summer after Attorney General Charles Foti concluded they gave ''lethal cocktails'' to four patients at the flooded-out, sweltering Memorial Medical Center after the August 2005 storm.