Suitably Flip

Brits Bag Another 7

In London, the round-up continues.  6 men and 1 woman newly nabbed in this Brighton flat bring the tally of bombing-related arrests up to 19, including all 4 suspected attempted detonators.

Brilliant work, bobbies.

All of those arrested were detained at one property - a first floor flat in a building known as Fairways in the west of the city.

They are being held under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or harbouring fugitives.
...

"There were quite a few other people involved in the incidents of the 7th and the 21st. It's extremely likely there will be other people involved in harbouring, financing and making the devices."

Police have also been allowed extra time to question Yasin Hassan Omar, the man suspected to trying to blow up a train between Oxford Circus and Warren Street.

He can be questioned until Wednesday.

Suspects can be held for a maximum of 14 days under the anti-terror laws, before they must be charged or released. 

If it comes to it, I vote for "charged".

So just what is it that the Home Office is doing that's yielding such fast results?  It's worth a look.

8th Weekly Hardy Hinge Award - Special Introspective Edition

Each Friday weekend, our team of highly-trained media analysts sifts through the week's most detached diatribes and fatuous fugues to nominate candidates for this prestigious (and practical) trophy. Whichever nominee then earns the most votes from the blog-going public by the end of the weekend will be commissioned the week's most unhinged individual (or organization, media outlet, celebreality washout, etc.).

Congratulations to this week's nominees!  Vote for your pick below.  The polls will remain open until 10 pm Eastern on Sunday.

- Flip
For allowing his move to prevent him from getting this week's edition up on time. 

- Flip
For citing the above to try to excuse his delinquency.

- Flip
For using his delinquency as material for this week's edition.

Who has come the most unhinged this week?
	Flip, for delinquency
	Flip, for lame excuse
	Flip, for lazy material
Free polls from Pollhost.com

 
Visit last week's Hardy Hinge winner.
See all winners.

"...And Jupiter Aligns With 2003UB313"

A heated (and seemingly pointless) battle of astronomical semantics has erupted in the scientific community, following the discovery of what some are calling "the 10th planet".  Romantically monikered "2003UB313", the big chunk of whatever it is has incited Cal Tech's Michael Brown to advise, "Get out your pens and start rewriting the textbooks today."

But planetary purists aren't so sure.  They find cuddly little 2003UB313 inadequate to hold the high distinction, what with it milling about in the Kuiper Belt, a far-flung wasteland of ice and "planetary debris".  Still, time-honored textbook fixture and cartoon canine honoree Pluto hails from the mean streets of Kuiper, and previous attempts to oust that "chunk of debris" from the line-up have failed.

And the newly-found chunk is chunkier than Pluto, leading Brown to make an appeal both to precedent and to worldwide affection for the icy orb:

''The only definition is the nine things we already call planets,'' Brown said. "People love Pluto. Calling Pluto not a planet is never going to be popular.
...
"Our feeling is that Pluto has been called a planet for so long that the world is comfortable calling it a planet, and it seems to be a logical extension that anything that is bigger than Pluto and farther away than Pluto has to be a planet, too.''

Things, chunks, debris...  The sciency jargon is enough to leave you spinning.

The consensus seems to be edging toward Brown and the pro-2003UB313 crowd, so the primary question left to answer is what to call the little guy.  Informally dubbed Xena, it seems the naming convention of pop culture borrowing from the astronomical lexicon may have inverted.

But even after the International Astronomical Union makes its decision, there will be no rest for weary planet-hunters.  The Kuiper Belt is populated by another 70,000 scrappy chunks, gobs, and nuggets, all vying for their shot at the big leagues, dreaming of that day an astronomical scout comes calling, NASA grant and Scholastic contract in hand.

Fighting Irish No More

Well, howdaya like that?  Another terrorist organization spontaneously and unconditionally lays down its arms.  Next time you run into the leader of a Coalition nation, be sure to thank him or her.

The statement by the IRA said that its leadership had "formally ordered an end to the armed campaign," as the organization calls its military activities, which are described by supporters as armed struggle and by adversaries as terrorism.
...
"All I.R.A. units have been ordered to dump arms," said the statement, which was read on the DVD by a former I.R.A. prisoner, Seanna Walsh. The statement also pledged "to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use" - a reference to the I.R.A.'s reputedly vast hidden stockpiles of weapons.
...
The statement said all I.R.A. volunteers had been "instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programs through exclusively political means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever" - language taken by outsiders to refer to criminal activities.

Leave it to the New York Times to label this historic, unconditional abdication of criminality and violence that has killed thousands over the course of decades a "potentially profound shift".

Dream Weaver

Hillary Clinton, in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council yesterday, beseeched her partymates to quit obstructing each other's agendas, and unite in pursuit of their core objective, obstructing the GOP agenda.

Well, that's not exactly how she put it.  But that's the subtext I take away.

In her new post chairing the DLC's "American Dream Initiative" (which to me seems a bit syrupily grandiose, given its intent) the Senator appears primarily charged with traveling the country, making nice with state and local party leaders, cramming the airwaves with reinvented policy stances, and lambasting Republicans with such Bill-conjuring platitudes as, "They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back to the 19th century."

Recently, Clinton has come out in support of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (probably shrewd, given the relatively smooth sailing it appears he may undergo and the near impossibility of disparaging the man or his record with a straight face), but opposed to CAFTA (despite the DLC being largely pro-CAFTA and despite her husband having toiled tirelessly during his Presidency to convince fellow Democrats (including John Kerry, who's now (stunningly) also anti-CAFTA) to vote for NAFTA).

The Senate recently voted in favor of the free trade agreement, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicts that 95% of her Congressional colleagues will vote it down tomorrow.  Despite the ongoing fracturing of Big Labor, it apparently still holds considerable sway over the left, as the agreement is objectively beneficial to the economy of the United States.  Not only is obstruction of CAFTA a dangerously protectionist stance, it ignores the fact that, given the current balance of tariffs between the United States and affected central American nations, we stand to benefit disproportionately from the agreement.

Talk about tunnels to the 19th century.

Still, amid the frustration of the spiraling and splintered left, if this is an issue that really can unify 95% of Democratic Congressmen, maybe Hillary coming down on the anti-progress, anti-globalization, anti-economic prosperity, even anti-DLC side of the argument is what it will take to bring her own American Dream a little more within her reach.

And The Winner Is...

This week's Special Tardy Hardy Hinge Award goes resoundingly to the ever-quizzical Senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, for the endless take-home exam he assigned SCOTUS hopeful John Roberts.

Chuck Schumer 70%

Larry C. Johnson 0%

Jonathan Chait 30%

Congratulations, Senator!  Way to show the competition up, Chuck.

This week's runners-up:

• Larry C. Johnson
  For fanning the Plame.
• Jonathan Chait
  The winner of HHA6 put up a strong entry with his newest claptrap, but was unable to repeat.

Visit last week's winner.
See all winners.

Collect All Five!

California's Pelican Bay State Prison inmate Felipe Rocha has joined the finger club.  The solitarily confined prisoner happened upon the disembodied digit in the vegetarian (yes, vegetarian) meal served to him in his cell.

Rocha is suing the food packager that prepared the meal, a Florida company that boasts "convenience at your fingertips" (yes, "at your fingertips").

This, of course, comes just weeks after a Louisiana woman found the fingertip of a former Applebee's worker in her take-out salad.

That, of course, came just weeks after a Las Vegas woman claimed to find a fingertip in a cup of Wendy's chili.  When DNA testing showed the finger belonged to a co-worker of her husband, the woman was arrested and now awaits trial in a California county jail.

The cycle of inadvertent cannibalism is not, it would seem, without a sense of irony.

7th Weekly Hardy Hinge Award - Special Tardy Edition

Each Friday or Saturday, our team of highly-trained media analysts sifts through the week's most detached diatribes and fatuous fugues to nominate candidates for this prestigious (and practical) trophy. Whichever nominee then earns the most votes from the blog-going public by the end of the weekend will be commissioned the week's most unhinged individual (or organization, media outlet, celebreality washout, etc.).

Congratulations to this week's nominees!  Vote for your pick below.  The polls will remain open until 10 pm Eastern on Sunday.

- Senator Chuck Schumer
For questions, questions, questions.

- Larry C. Johnson
For fanning the Plame.

- Jonathan Chait
Last week's winner returns with more triumphantly irrelevant bombast.

Who has come the most unhinged this week?
	Chuck Schumer
	Larry C. Johnson
	Jonathan Chait
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Visit last week's Hardy Hinge winner.
See all winners.

Let's Just Agree to Agree

Courtesy of the RNC Research Department, Supreme Court pick John Roberts is basking in widespread praise (or at least acknowledgment of acceptability) from left of center:

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "The President Has Chosen Someone With Suitable Legal Credentials ..." (Janet Hook and Mary Curtius, "Democrats Keep Rhetorical Powder Dry," Los Angeles Times, 7/20/05)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) "Said Federal Appellate [Judge] ... John G. Roberts [Was] 'In The Ballpark' ..." (David Lightman, "Senators Consulted On Court Vacancy," The Hartford Courant, 7/14/05)

Lieberman: "This Is A Credible Nominee, And Not One That, As Far As We Know Now, Has A Record That In Any Sense Could Be Described As Extremist." (Jesse J. Holland, "Slim Chance For Roberts Filibuster, But Democrats Say They Won't Rubber Stamp," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "[I] Think He's Qualified, Yes. I Don't Think He's An Extremist. I Think He's A Very Smart Man." (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7/20/05)

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):  "Roberts Clearly Has The Legal Background And Intellect To Serve, Obama Said." ("Obama Says He's Undecided On Supreme Court Nominee," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR): "My Sense Is, So Far, So Good." (Jesse J. Holland, "Lieberman: Roberts Probably Not Extremist," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) "Said He Will Wait To Decide How He'll Vote Until After The Senate's Confirmation Hearing. ... He Sees Nothing Now That Would Derail Roberts." (Jake Thompson, "Nebraska's Two Senators Will Be Under Pressure For Roberts Confirmation," Omaha World-Herald, 7/21/05)

Nelson: "I'm Not Looking For Reasons To Oppose Him." (Jake Thompson, "Nebraska's Two Senators Will Be Under Pressure For Roberts Confirmation," Omaha World-Herald, 7/21/05)

Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "I Think The White House Did Its Homework. They Found An Individual That Is Brilliant, Clearly Capable As A Jurist." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 7/20/05)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "[H]e's Legally Skilled, A Very Bright Man. He Has No Questions, Related To His Honesty Or Ethics That I'm Aware Of. And A Good Temperament." (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7/20/05)

Putting Yuan

Only in China would pegging the currency to an unspecified basket of international currencies be considered allowing it to float freely.

Still, getting that monkey (panda?) off the greenback's back is a market-friendly move and should allow U.S. companies to compete more fairly in the export market.

On the heels of the happy news about tax revenues, it's starting to look like both of those pesky twin deficits may be slipping away.

Alleged Allegations

Slander penalties must be harsh in Georgia.

Vladimer Arutunian, the man "allegedly suspected" of tossing a grenade at President Bush during his visit to Tbilisi, Georgia, has been arrested, thanks in part to his allegedly appearing in an "alleged photo".

Allegedly.

According to Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili, as quoted in Civil Georgia Online Magazine:

Arutunian was wounded in a shootout [with police] and was arrested shortly after [the shootout] by the special purpose unit.

In recent months, the Interior Ministry in cooperation with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation carried out a huge amount of work. We could pinpoint an alleged photo of suspect, I want to stress the alleged photo. As a result, in the recent days we have received number of information about alleged, I want to stress, the alleged suspect.

The "alleged suspect"?  Hey, Georgia, I hereby suspect him.  You can go ahead and call him an actual, honest-to-goodness suspect now.

Habemus SCOTUS

Whoops - more like t-minus 80 seconds...

Federal Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is Bush's first Supreme Court nominee.  Our condolences to Judge Roberts and his family.

Roberts is just 50 years old and the newest member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  He is a former Rehnquist law clerk and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, of which he has won 25.

Via Drudge, Roberts has a clearly articulated stance on Roe v. Wade:

No support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution [for legal reasoning in Roe vs Wade].

...we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

White, male, and a pair of Harvard degrees - not who I'd've predicted.  Daniel Larrison got it right.  So did Bradford Berenson (as Malkin notes).  Erick at RedState.org suggested a couple weeks back that Roberts might be the eventual nom, given his presumed esteem in the eyes of the Senate's seven dealing dems.  Via The Messenger at The Minefield (who'd also picked Roberts), his law.com profile contains some high praise and prescience:

At a recent discussion before the local chapter of the Corporate Counsel Association, Roberts got considerable mention when a panel of Supreme Court experts was asked to handicap possible nominees.

"I think it will be John Roberts," said Latham & Watkins partner Maureen Mahoney, who is on some lists herself. "He has the brilliance, dedication and temperament to emerge as an intellectual leader of the Court," she said afterward.

For further edification, see Roberts' bio, resume, and support from esteemed colleagues, all available courtesy of the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy.

Update: Appearing on Fox News Channel at 8:55 pm, "Gang of 14" Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) said of Judge Roberts (nearly verbatim except as noted):

"I don't know very much about him... I look forward to letting him go through the normal process.  [We will give him] very serious consideration... The last thing we need is another 52-48, knock-down, drag out vote... I hope Roberts will be a consensus candidate... I'm glad the President consulted with a number of Senators on this nomination."

Update: In a brief address after being introduced by the President just after 9:00 pm, Judge Roberts noted the honor and humility of receiving the nominiation.  He acknowledged his parents, Jack and Rosemary, his sisters, Kathy, Peggy, and Barbara, and his children Josie and Jack, who "remind [him] every day why it's so important to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy."

Class act.

Update: Almost, almost amusing, if only for its stupefyingly predictable verbiage, is Give 'Em Hooey Howie's reaction (via Ankle Biting Pundits):

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored."

Are those fiirst 15 words simply engraved at the top of Howard Dean's letterhead?  And if so, why he did buy so much of it?

Last Chance to Vote

T-minus 80 minutes until President Bush announces his Supreme Court nomination.  Cast your prediction now!

This is also your last chance to savor a media environment in which you're not continually assailed with the terms "litmus test", "judicial philosophy", "overturned precedent", and "radical conservative".

Saddle up, Chuck!

And the Winner Is...

In another landslide, this week's Special OpEdition Hardy Hinge Award goes to The L.A. Times:

The New York Times	8%
The L.A. Times	83%
The Washington Post	8%

Jonathan Chait brought home the brass with his non-reality-reflecting commentary on the evils of something-d-o-o economics.

Congratulations, L.A. Times!

This week's runners-up:

• The New York Times

For likening our brave servicewomen to prostitutes.

• The Washington Post

For uncommon resilience in their insistence that Gitmo is a chamber of horrors.

Visit last week's winner.
See all winners.

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Internationalize It

I think the U.N. is right.  This whole internet thing just works too well.  Let's try shaking its foundations and see if we can't bureaucrat it up a bit.

6th Weekly Hardy Hinge Award - Special OpEd-ition

Each Friday, our team of highly-trained media analysts sifts through the week's most detached diatribes and fatuous fugues to nominate candidates for this prestigious (and practical) trophy. Whichever nominee then earns the most votes from the blog-going public by the end of the weekend will be commissioned the week's most unhinged individual (or organization, media outlet, celebreality washout, etc.).

Congratulations to this week's nominees!  Vote for your pick below.  The polls will remain open until 10 pm Eastern on Sunday.

- The New York Times

There were several instances when female soldiers [at Gitmo] rubbed up against prisoners and touched them inappropriately ... To us, that sounds a lot like what Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tried to ban from Times Square.

- The L.A. Times

When last we left the Bush economic team and its defenders, they were predicting that tax cuts wouldn't cause revenue to drop very much at all. The naysayers, they insisted, were just a bunch of Keynesian liberals who failed to grasp the power of tax cuts to unleash the dynamism of investors and entrepreneurs.

Since then, revenues didn't just fall, they utterly collapsed.
(They did?)

 - The Washington Post 

The administration has been negligent (at best) in determining who in fact was being held at Guantanamo and in establishing the sometimes shocking conditions under which they were held.

Who has come the most unhinged this week?
	The New York Times
	The L.A. Times
	The Washington Post
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Visit last week's Hardy Hinge winner.
See all winners.

He Who Laffs Last

Don't you love it when you're walking down the street and you spot an orphaned dollar bill on the sidewalk?  Sure, you glance around to make sure no one's got it tied to a string, but then you seize it hungrily.  It's an even sweeter surprise when (after slyly squirreling it away until you've ducked behind a corner) you unfurl the bill and find it's got a friend - maybe even a fin.  Yes, a little unexpected windfall can change your whole outlook.

What must it be like then, to stumble upon a cash cache that tallied up to $94 billion?

If you're a taxpayer, you tell me.  From today's Washington Post (emphasis mine):

The federal budget deficit will slip to $333 billion this fiscal year, from $412 billion in 2004, as a surge of unanticipated tax receipts pushes the red ink significantly below levels projected just five months ago, White House officials said yesterday.

The midyear budget forecast also shows that President Bush is on track to reach his goal of halving the deficit a year before his deadline of 2009. By 2008, the White House forecasts that the deficit will fall to $162 billion, or 1.1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). A slight rise projected for 2010 reflects the initial cost of Bush's proposal to add private investment accounts to Social Security.
...

[The] White House foresaw a record deficit of $427 billion, equal to 3.5 percent of the GDP, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Under that forecast, the deficit would have risen for the fourth straight year, from the $128 billion surplus Bush inherited in 2001. Now, the deficit is expected to finally begin receding, and it would come in at 2.7 percent of the GDP, smaller in those terms than the deficits of 15 of the past 25 years.

"The U.S. budget deficit is falling, and it's falling fast," said White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten.

Let's review, just to make sure I've got the sequence correct:

- Reduce taxes (as democrats wring their hands about deficits and fiscal irresponsibility)
- Tax revenues surge
- Deficit declines (while at war, no less)

Hmm.  Maybe Arthur Laffer was on to something.

"Telecom Cowboy" Off To the Pokey

Former WorldCom (now MCI, Inc.) chief Bernie Ebbers was sentenced today to 25 years in federal prison, for his leadership role in the accounting chicanery that led to the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Ebbers was the 6th WorldCom executive convicted in connection with the massive fraud (the other 5 pleaded guilty and testified against their former boss), but the first sentenced.  Now 63, Ebbers won't be eligible for parole before he turns 85, assuming his conviction is not overturned on appeal.

His pleas for leniency may have helped him escape a de jure life sentence, but this, in concert with the combined 25 years handed down to the Rigas boys last month in the Adelphia case (virtually tantamount to a life sentence for John, 80), plus the hard-slogged conviction of Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, ought to provide further encouragement for would-be defrauders to think twice about massaging corporate earnings.

Still, with other recent high-profile fraud cases ending in acquittals (like this one and this one), the - ahem - jury may still be out on overall prosecutorial efficacy in the modern age of white collar justice.

Evil By Any Other Name

In its early reporting of the London subway and bus bombings, the BBC quite reasonably suspended its own tradition of avoiding any use of the words "terror" and "terrorist" when describing... well, terror and terrorists.  On the day of the attacks, BBC web headlines included "London rocked by terror attacks," "Terror security is stepped up" and "Rail travel hit by terror blasts."

In the past, the network has opted for more mincing verbiage.  Per BBC guidelines:

"The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding.  We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterize while we report the facts as we know them."

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber,' 'attacker,' 'gunman,' 'kidnapper,' 'insurgent,' and 'militant.' Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom."

Well, time, it seems, has enabled the BBC PTB to re-affirm such objectivity.  The reports published in those early hours have apparently been retroactively edited to comply with the terror-agnostic policy.

*sheesh*

The ostensible rationale is the avoidance of subjectivity and the pursuit of proper understanding.  But consider the following Merriam-Webster definition of the word "terror":

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Give that book a cigar.  That seems pretty spot-on to me.  I defy the BBC to find another definition that so accurately and objectively describes what happened in London last week.

If I thought an online subscription to the auto-designated definitive record of the English language was worth the $295 it's currently fetching, I'd be happy to furnish the equivalent entry from the Queen's English.

Hat tip: Drudge.

"You see, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care."

Maybe Peter Gibbons had it right - it's a problem of motivation.

If so, 20-somethings working in the insurance industry in Missouri might be clinically comatose with apathy.

According to a survey by America Online and Salary.com, that demographic represents the work-shirking trifecta, in terms of hours of daily productivity lost to non-work activities, which include socializing with co-workers, applying for other jobs, running errands, and "spacing out".

The tally: $759 billion (6.5% of GDP) in annually squandered productivity.  Impressive!  That's the amount above and beyond the wasted time HR managers already budget for.

All that and we still lead the world in everything we do.  Just imagine if we buckled down.

Eh, that'd just be showin' off.

A Growing Consensus

If Senate dems are so keen on the notion of consensus, in re Bush's upcoming Supreme Court nom, they might do well to consult the Rasmussen poll published today, that found fewer than 1 in 4 likely American voters think the minority party should vote to oppose a well-qualified conservative nominee.

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
July 7, 2005

Should Democrats in the Senate vote to confirm or oppose a well-qualified conservative nominee?

Confirm 58%
Oppose 24%

RasmussenReports.com

And the Scum Is...

Not surprisingly, the "Secret Organisation of Al Qaeda" came out on top in this weekend's polling, which asked, "Who is the least human scum of the Earth?"

Inhuman Taliban scum	30%
Inhuman European Al Qaeda scum	48%
Inhuman Iraqi Al Qaeda scum	22%

Defeatist Blamemongers Grapple With Logic

According to a matter-of-fact Kos, Italy "is quiting Iraq".

(Is that what he meant?  Well, *not quite*.  In Mr. Moulitsas' defense, my blogging software's spell check lets "quiting" sail right by, but maybe a quick manual scan of the 55-word composition would've averted this uncomely citation from the spelling police.)

Anyway, on to the content, which is far more rebukable.

Kos is referring to an ABC News story about Italy's tentative plans to withdraw 10% of its troops (300 of its original commitment of 3,000) in September, subject to security conditions at that time.

Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli characterized the proposed partial military withdrawal as a matter on which to begin discussion, and noted it would commence "perhaps by September".  Calderoli went on to explain that the move would be part of an effort to allocate more of its finite resources to Italy's own homeland security initiatives.

That's quitting Iraq?

Kos pauses to ponder:

How much safer would the United States be if we had spent $200 billion+ to secure our ports and border, instead of creating new terrorists in Iraq?

For guidance, he looks to Arianna Huffington, who makes a rather bizarre claim:

No one can seriously argue that if the U.S. and Britain had spent the last 46 months -- and over $200 billion -- focusing on Al Qaeda rather than Iraq these attacks would not have happened. But we can say without a doubt that spending that time and money in Iraq did not prevent them.

Well, I guess that's hard to argue with.  Indeed, the time and money spent in Iraq did not prevent these attacks, which did in fact take place.

Similarly, no one can seriously argue that if I hadn't spent 10 minutes -- and over $7 -- eating that delicious meatball hero for dinner on Tuesday, these attacks would not have happened.  But we can say without a doubt that spending that time and money at the pizzeria did not prevent them.

Huffington pulls off a nice little inverted post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.  Fine work.

The logical distinction between our arguments?  None.  So why does mine seem (slightly) more asinine?  Because I'm not winkingly making that argument which "no one can seriously argue".  Huff and Kos are.

Unless she means us to take her argument for one as pointless as my corollary, she must be suggesting that the multi-national military campaign in Iraq (most notably the efforts of the U.S. and Great Britain) are at least partly responsible for Thursday's mass murder.

Unpalatable on so many levels, this suggestion, in turn, of course relies on the premise that the liberation of Iraq and the continued zealous pursuit of Al Qaeda were mutually exclusive, an idea that strikes me as the kind of "absurd ... either/or logic" she decries in the very same post.

As to Kos and his hand-wringing conclusion that our allies are "abandoning us one by one" (that one's called hasty generalization), I predict the pessimism and inevitability of defeat he's peddling will shortly be shown for the bogus hokum it is, as the civilized world is further galvanized by this week's hideous barbarism and freedom-loving nations around the world redouble their efforts in the fight against those who would do us harm.

Open Post on Privacy vs. Security

With few actionable leads thus far reported, it appears that one of the best sources of intelligence for British investigators studying this week's terror bombings will be the closed-circuit TV cameras positioned on London's streets in the vicinity of the attacks.

The growing prevalence of similar security measures in urban centers here in the U.S. has long been the subject of big brother watchdogs.

Given the possibility of their playing a pivotal role in this terror investigation, yet mindful of reasonable resistance to universal surveillance of average, law-abiding joes, what are your thoughts about the trade-offs between inner-city privacy and enhanced investigative capacity?

5th Weekly Hardy Hinge Award - Special Edition

Each Friday, our team of highly-trained media analysts sifts through the week's most detached diatribes and fatuous fugues to nominate candidates for this prestigious (and practical) trophy. Whichever nominee then earns the most votes from the blog-going public by the end of the weekend will be commissioned the week's most unhinged individual (or organization, media outlet, celebreality washout, etc.).

It seems like there's a little too much evil rearing its head this week to focus on the relative benigneries usually considered in this forum.  Instead, this week, give us your pick for least human scum of the Earth.  The nominees:

- Inhuman Taliban Scum

- Inhuman European Al Qaeda Scum

- Inhuman Iraqi Al Qaeda Scum 

Who is the least human scum of the Earth?
	Inhuman Taliban scum
	Inhuman European Al Qaeda Scum
	Inhuman Iraqi Al Qaeda Scum
Free polls from Pollhost.com

This week, feel free to vote for as many of the nominees as you like, as often as you like.

America's Mayor - Eyewitness to Terror... Again

In an odd twist of fate, Rudy Giuliani was yards away from this morning's terrorist bombing in London's Liverpool Street Station.  The former New York Mayor served as a source of comfort and a pillar of strength to many in the wake of 9/11, due in no small part due to his visceral experience at the scene of the WTC attacks, fighting for survival and escape alongside fellow New Yorkers.

Rudy offered the following account of today's attack:

It was very strange being here today and being a block or half a block away when the bomb went off.
...
We were in a hotel having breakfast when it happened and we were told originally that it was either an accident or a device, and then obviously when the second attack happened, we knew.
...
I told the prime minister and the head of the fire department that it's the same perplexing thought and feeling, which is why do these innocent people have to be killed? The people who were killed were people who were on their way to work in virtually the same time frame as the attacks on Sept. 11.
...
As I was watching it, I was saying to myself, you can see the genes - these are the same people whose grandparents and great-grandparents withstood the Battle of Britain without flinching.
...
They didn't know the day or the hour, but everyone I talked to here, whether it's government people or civilians, say they were shocked it happened this day, but they expected something like this.

"Secret Al Qaeda" = Phony Al Qaeda?

According to MSNBC Arab translator Jacob Keryakes, the website claiming responsibility for the London terror bombings in the name of "The Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" may be a fake.

Specifically, Keryakes refers to a Quaranic error in the statement that argues against the legitimacy of the authors' affiliation with the terror network.

Amy Robach: Jacob, where did the statement originally appear?

Jacob Keryakes: Well, the statement was published on an Islamic web site.  Minutes later, it was removed from the web site itself because it contained an error in one of the Quaranic verses and al-Qaida doesn't usually do that, but the same statement was published (later) on a secular web site.

If not Al Qaeda, then who?  Surely there are plenty of malcontented Al Qaeda wannabes roaming the planet.  But could an unaffiliated group of evildoers pull off such a coordinated attack, one of the most severe episodes of terrorism since 9/11, and the worst attack on London since World War II?

London Terrorist Attacks

Dozens are reported dead, and hundreds are injured in an apparent coordinated terrorist attack in London, with several blasts occurring in Underground subway stations and on a double-decker bus.

Seven explosions occurred, starting at 8:50 a.m. local time, at financial district Underground stations, including Liverpool Street, Moorgate and Aldgate East, police said. Casualties were on a bus that exploded near Russell Square, a firefighter said. Nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks, which come a day after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics.

The website of a group entitled "Secret Organisation - al-Qaeda in Europe" has claimed responsibility with the attacks, which coincided with the G8 economic summit taking place in Scotland.  The self-declared culprits threatened similar attacks on Italy, Denmark, and other "crusader governments" with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Der Spiegel Online has a screenshot of the letter claiming responsibility (HT: MM).

From Tony Blair's second address since the attacks, at 8:10 am Eastern:

We condemn utterly these barbaric attacks.  We send our condolences to the victims and their families ...  [This is an] attack not on one nation, but on all nations, and on civilized people everywhere.  We will not allow violence to change our values, nor we will allow it to stop our deliberations. The perpetrators of these attacks are intent on destroying human life ... We shall prevail and they shall not.

Instapundit and Michelle Malkin have ongoing roundups.

As of 8:25, international markets were reacting negatively:

      FTSE   -2.04%    -106.70    5,122.90
      DAX     -2.06%    -95.21      4,520.28
      Nikkei  -0.12%    -13.39    11,590.14

In the U.S. Dow futures were down 136, Nasdaq futures were down 22.00, and S&P futures were down 14.9, before the market opened.

From remarks made earlier by London's mayor Ken Livingstone, directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks:

I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life ..., but I know that you do fear that you may fail in your long term objective, and I will show you why you will fail.  In the days that follow ... people from around the world will arrive in London ... as so many have chosen to come before.  Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.

Celling the Drama

The jig is up, Chuck.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), noted proponent of consensus, togetherness, and the other magnanimous buzzwords lately filling the mouths of Senate Democrats, let his partisan underbelly show aboard an Amtrak train, unaware that the Drudge Report was in earshot.

In the wake of Justice O'Connor's announced retirement, Schumer had earlier advised the President to "replace Justice O'Connor with a consensus candidate, not an ideologue."  He was one among a broad chorus of Senate Democrats lofting pleas for peace, love, and harmony in the Supreme Court nomination process.

Ted Kennedy hopes "the president will select someone who meets the high standards that [O'Connor] set and that can bring the nation together, as she did."  And Senate minority leader Harry Reid reminds us, "It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness."  Reid added, "With this nomination the President should choose to unite the country, not divide it."  On behalf of the minority party on the whole, Howard Dean put it, "Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."

Such gentility!

Yet, quizzically, per Drudge's source aboard Schumer's train, the Senator's careless gabbery included the following less-than-amicable sentiments (emhpasis mine):

We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this.
...
Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again.
...
A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.

Drudge characterized these final remarks as a mockery by Schumer of the deal struck by the "Gang of 14", which set an ostensible good-faith benchmark by which dealing Democrats would measure future nominees.  In that light, if we're to assume Schumer's "war" plans are in line with his party at large, we seem to be in store for a bait and switch.

Color me flabbergasted.

Senator, for your next trip, may I make a recommendation?
 

Hate Crimes

How many points of failure did the system have to endure for this murderous bigot and frustrated terrorist to be out freely walking the streets?

I count at least 7.

Odd that this preventable tragedy didn't secure the same media outrage meted out for anti-Muslim hate crimes (even fictional ones).

"I.O.C. London, I.O.C. France..."

New York's Olympic dreams are dashed.

Update: London is the big winner, trumping favorite Paris.

And the Winner Is...

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi makes quick work of the competition to waltz away with this week's Hardy Hinge Award:

Nancy Pelosi	88%
Richard Scrushy	0%
Silvio Berlusconi	13%

Official Proclamation, for immediate release:

"For her reliable knee-jerk reactionism and ability to blindly embrace a position simply because it's contrary, despite an utter lack of defensibility; and in particular, for her gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of separation of powers with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, and indeed of the implications of legislative matters under her own purview, we at Suitably Flip farcically present this Hardy Hinge Award to Nancy Pelosi."

Congratulations, Nancy!

This week's runners-up:

• Richard Scrushy, for his apparently genuine belief that he might be restored to the CEO post at HealthSouth, now that a jury has acquitted him of 36 counts of fraud and conspiracy.

• Silvio Berlusconi, for the Italian Prime Minister's gratuitous rebuke of the United States, demanding "full respect" for his country's sovereignty and summoning Ambassador Sembler to answer for the 2003 disappearance of a terror suspect in Milan.

Visit last week's winner.
See all winners.

To Consult or Not To Consult?

On Friday, President Bush gave a brief address in response to Justice O'Connor's retirement plans.  Among his remarks:

I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate.

That same day, Scott McLellan elaborated that the administration would in fact make use of "more thorough consulting" with the Senate than it has on previous federal court nominees.  The President placed calls to various Senate leaders to initiate such consultation and has scheduled a meeting with Senators Reid, Leahy, Frist, and Specter for July 11th.

Nonetheless, Senators Kennedy, Biden, and Leahy have since loudly broadcast their uneasy hopes that the President will see fit to consult with them before nominating what their party fears will be an "ideological extremist".

These plaintive urgings seem a mite unnecessary, given that Bush has already pledged such consultation and indeed begun to administer it.

But where these Senators are superfluous on the matter, a publication of the Democrat party itself is outright disingenuous.  The top of the front page of the DNC website, as of this writing, asks the following:

Will [the President] follow the instructions in the Constitution to consult the Senate when choosing a nominee to replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court?

Read the full text of the post by Jesse Berney (a self-described "writer and political activist" seen here alongside make-believe President Martin Sheen; note also the bedeviled likeness of "evil" real-life President George Bush).

Perhaps in the fictional world of The West Wing, the U.S. Constitution instructs the President to "consult the Senate when choosing a nominee", but in the real world, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 reads as follows (emphasis mine):

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Senate consultation volunteered by the President is a politically, procedurally, and administratively wise and judicious move, but ultimately it is a courtesy.  The wistful gesticulation and posturing of certain Senators, not to mention the patently inaccurate claims of the DNC, don't tend to foretell a similar level of courtesy to be accorded his nominee.

Auteur, Auteur!

229 years ago, a 33-year-old Virginian penned what endures as one of the most pivotal documents in the history of human civilization.

Refresh your 8th grade memorization this holiday weekend with the full text of the Delcaration, or - if you're on a fast connection and have a good printer - make your own super-hi-res reproduction.

USHistory.org offers some fun resources, including an early draft complete with Jefferson's handwritten edits, and mini bios on all the signers.

National Treasure fans, find out what's really on the back of the document.

Thanks, TJ!

4th Weekly Hardy Hinge Award

Each Friday, our team of highly-trained media analysts sifts through the week's most detached diatribes and fatuous fugues to nominate candidates for this prestigious (and practical) trophy. Whichever nominee then earns the most votes from the blog-going public by the end of the weekend will be commissioned the week's most unhinged individual (or organization, media outlet, celebreality washout, etc.).

Congratulations to this week's nominees!  Vote for your pick below.  The polls will remain open until 10 pm Eastern on Sunday.

- Nancy Pelosi

For her reliable knee-jerk reactionism and ability to blindly embrace a position simply because it's contrary, despite an utter lack of defensibility.  In particular, we salute Pelosi's gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of separation of powers with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, and indeed of the implications of legislative matters under her own purview.

- Richard Scrushy 

For his apparently genuine belief that he might be restored to the CEO post at HealthSouth, now that a jury has acquitted him of 36 counts of fraud and conspiracy.

- Silvio Berlusconi 

For the Italian Prime Minister's gratuitous rebuke of the United States, demanding "full respect" for his country's sovereignty and summoning Ambassador Sembler to answer for the 2003 disappearance of a terror suspect in Milan.

Who has come the most unhinged this week?
	Nancy Pelosi
	Richard Scrushy
	Silvio Berlusconi
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Visit last week's Hardy Hinge winner.
See all winners.

SCOTUS Fever

There's a whopper case of it going around.  And there's only one prescription...

No, not more cowbell.  The only cure for this one is a knock-down, drag-out, horrendously protracted battle on Capitol Hill.  The one we've all been waiting for.

The vacancy created by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is sure to make recent Senate scuffles seem almost civil in comparison.  Prepare for the return of the Gang of 14.  Brace yourself for tirades about radical ideologies.  Ready your sensibilities for long-winded lectures from Teddy the Bork Slayer, John "Nuance" Kerry, and crowd favorite Dr. Demento Dean.  In fact, despite his normally reserved disposition, the mouth of the DNC has already cloyed the President with a simpering plea to deliver a candidate that fetches "consensus rather than confrontation".

The fact that the moderate O'Connor will retire before the more conservative Rehnquist, who was expected to yield Bush's first nom op, changes the playing field slightly.  Since O'Connor was frequently a "swing" justice, siding with the majority in a slew of key 5-4 decisions, a strongly conservative pick would shift the overall tenor of the bench more so than it would were it replacing the chief justice.

Bush has stated he won't announce a pick before he gets back from the G8 summit next week, but a short list of candidates has apparently been circulated in the White House.  So let's make with the speculating:

Who do you think Bush will nominate?

	Samuel Alito, Jr. (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Janice Rogers Brown (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Edith Brown Clement (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Miguel Estrada (Lawyer)
	Emilio Garza (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Alberto Gonzales (Attorney General)
	Edith Hollan Jones (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Michael Luttig (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Michael McConnell (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Theodore Olson (Solicitor General)
	John Roberts (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Larry Thompson (Former Deputy Attorney General)
	James Harvie Wilkinson III (Courts of Appeals Judge)
	Other (Whatever)
Free polls from Pollhost.com

To bone up on the candidates, see Slate, the Chicago Sun Times, and the SCOTUS Nomination Blog.