The Alito Nomination: Three hours in and we're already bare-knuckles brawling.

I must admit that I have not heard enough about Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but already things are interesting. The Drudge Report, always interesting reading whether or not you agree with the slant, has a piece up about how Alito's nickname of "Scalito" (because he agrees with Scalia, get it?) is ethnically insensitive:

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent out talking points this morning titled: “Judge ‘Scalito’ Has Long History Of States Rights, Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings.” More from the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers: “Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”

To this I have to say, come on. But the real treasure of the morning is the fact that CBS News reporter John Roberts apparently referred to Alito as "sloppy seconds":

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

I need to research this more; but if true, it would rank right up there with Howard Dean's recent accusations of Republicans playing "hide the salami" with Harriet Miers' legal record.

Tags: Funny, Alito, Politics, SCOTUS

With a name like "Scooter," he was bound to be indicted.

As any casual reader of these pages can see, I am a conservative; therefore, it seems an appropriate time to comment on the recent indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

I am neither surprised nor demoralized. First, I tend to believe that the facts of the case will clearly show that no crime was committed in the release of Valerie Plame's intelligence identity to the press. Indeed, I think the release tends to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility on the Niger issue altogether. But more on that, perhaps, later.

Second, I have very little patience for the obsession in Washington for cover-ups. As I read through Fitzgerald's accusations against Libby, I think I see a clear pattern emerging: Libby wanted to get the Plame story out there, tried to do it in a way that was carefully crafted not to get him in trouble (this already displays some consciousness of guilt), then lied about it when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. This, of course, is not the time to trust your ability to deceive.

Third, I feel these are serious charges (you won't hear either the "there's no underlying crime" or the "perjury is a technicality" arguments here), and I think Fitzgerald has investigated fairly. Libby was right to resign, and Bush was right to accept said resignation.

Here are some things I don't believe:

• Joe Wilson is a hero. Dear God, there are some people out there who believe this. I heard Barbara Boxer on Larry King Live last night spewing some sort of nonsense about "If only we'd listened to Ambassador Wilson, we wouldn't be in this quagmire." The Niger/uranium issue is a complicated one, and I think Wilson's own words, from his now-famous New York Times editorial, suggest how seriously his conclusions should be considered:

  "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people…It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place."

• This is the worst scandal since Watergate. No, this is politics as usual. The wrinkle here is that the person who put partisan hack Wilson's name forward for the Niger job was his wife, and she was a CIA employee. If she'd been, for instance, a UN employee, there would not be any scandal at all. Sure, elements in the administration wanted Wilson's conclusions subjected to serious scrutiny, and the fact that his wife thought he was qualified for this job is relevant. And don't kid yourselves: any Democratic administration would have done the same thing. Perhaps this is the problem.
  
• Rove is next. Well, maybe. But I find it hard to believe that, after Fitzgerald's deep investigation, the "smoking gun" that will nail Rove is going to be found. Perhaps he was simply not the mover here--remember that Wilson's grudge against the administration centered around Cheney, not Bush. Is it really hard to believe that, say, a reporter who had heard a whisper of something from Libby, or floating around elsewhere, would call Rove to confirm, and that he might just say "everyone seems to be asking that question"?
  
• This is worse than Clinton's perjury. As I recall, the Democratic talking heads were all about "there was no underlying crime" back in the Lewinsky days; now, they seem to be singing a different tune and justifying it with the old "Clinton lied, but nobody died" lyrics. This is not an issue of national security, since we can assume that Fitzgerald would have charged Rove and/or Libby under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 if he had the evidence. This assumes (and, to be fair, I'll be waiting for the final reports on the case to make a final determination) that Plame was not covert or had not been on overseas assignment for the five years prior to the "unmasking" act.
  

I'm content to let the investigation proceed, and for those found guilty to pay the prescribed penalties.

Tags: Libby, Rove, Plame, Karl Rove, PlameGate

Uh, excuse me, but...what???

It appears that there is a backlash in Europe against the celebration of Halloween. OK, fine, but here's the thing: apparently, it's considered to be an "unnecessary, bad American custom" and worse. Note the term "American" in there--this is supposed to be our fault. Hm.

If I'm not mistaken, pretty much everything about Halloween is European in origin, and the whole trick-or-treating thing has been celebrated in English-speaking parts of the world for many years, entirely separate from America's observances. Here's a quick primer on the subject.

I guess you have to blame somebody for the stuff you don't much care for. But does it always have to be America? How about Algeria? Or Albania? Or Armenia?

Tags: Halloween

Harriet Un-Miers Her Nomination

Well, chalk up another one for the people: yesterday, after weeks of withering fire from all corners of the political right, Harriet Miers withdrew herself from consideration for Sandra Day O'Connor's spot on the Supreme Court. And yet even this effort was handled in a ham-fisted way. In her withdrawal letter, she takes great pains to state that it is the process which is flawed, not herself. Consider these two tortured sentences:

Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

Yes, it is those evil Senators and their snooping that has doomed the nomination to failure. Uh huh. Well, I can't really blame them for trying to find a face-saving way out of the mess they'd created. But I think it's transparent, and something short and to-the-point would have served better. I mean, look at the complete text of Nixon's resignation letter: "Dear Mr. Secretary: I hereby resign the Office of President of the United States. Sincerely, Richard Nixon."

The thing that gets me, though, is the equally transparent way the left is using the withdrawal as political ammunition against the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." On the talking-head shows yesterday I saw the likes of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy all reading from the same script, talking about how Bush caved in to pressure from a radical religious faction. But based on late poll numbers, it appears that this fringe group has taken over most of America's populace. Whatever shall we do?!

PS: Does anyone know who the right-most woman in the above photo is? She's always with Miers in those walking-down-the-hallway shots.

Tags: Miers, SCOTUS, Jamie Brown

UPDATE: The woman in question is Special Assistant to the President Jamie Brown from the Office of Legislative Affairs.

The UN Foiled by MS Word's "Track Changes" Function

Who'd have thought this obnoxious function would have any real-world impact, let alone embarrass one of the world's largest political organizations?

A brief background: on Valentine's Day 2005, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri and 20 others were killed by a truck bomb in Beirut. The Syrians, who had directly involved themselves in Lebanese affairs for decades, were immediately suspected of assassinating Hariri. The popular furor following this forced the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon. The United Nations began an investigation under the direction of a certain Detlev Mehlis, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan repeatedly stated, through his spokesman, that he would not interfere in the investigation in any way. Mehlis's report, documenting the involvement of the Syrian government in the plot, was released on 21 October 2005.

So far so good. But it now appears that someone at the UN made changes to the report, removing the names of suspected, high-ranking participants. Below is the publicly released Section 96 of the Mehlis report:

96. One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

Now contrast that to the version displayed by MS Word's "Track Changes" function (as simulated by James Taranto over at OpinionJournal):

One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, Maher Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamil Al-Sayyed senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that Sayyed a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of Shawkat a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of Shawkat the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included Mustapha Hamdan another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

If you wish, you can download the MS Word document in question via the Washington Post, or view a reconstructed, unexpurgated version at MidEast Web.

OK, so what's the big deal? Mehlis, for his part, seems to have argued that the edits were made to protect the presumption of innocence, saying "I established a rule that any person named in witness testimony should not be named in the report unless that person has been charged with a crime." Sure. Only problem is that Gen. Assef Shawkat, a key deputy in the Assad regime, is mentioned several times in the edited report, despite never having been charged with a crime. And at the same time, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric implied that the suspicious changes were unintentional, stating "I would urge you to look toward unfortunate clerical error rather than to conspiracy."

"That's all well and good," you may say, "but surely it's not a scandal to have a large bureaucracy confused about its public statements." True, but Dujarric also let this nugget slip: "This is Mr. Mehlis' investigation. This is his report. The secretary-general has at no time made any attempt to influence the report. But it turns out that Track Changes logged some interesting activity right around the time Mehlis was meeting with Annan. According to The Times of London

Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday — a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.

So what do we have here? Someone at the UN removed information that could embarrass the Syrian regime--which, as even a casual reading of the whole report will show, were caught fairly red-handed--at a time that just happened to be during Mehlis's meeting with Annan (a man who had pledged not to interfere in any way).

The UN, up to its eyeballs in corruption charges, seems to be mystified why anyone would make such a big deal out of this. Kinda shows how in touch they are with the world outside of Turtle Bay.

Tags: UN, United Nations, Syria, Lebanon, News and politics

Texas Justice in Action

The case against Rep. Tom DeLay continues to disintegrate. On Friday, the prosecutors handling the money-laundering charges against DeLay and his associates admitted that they lack a piece of physical evidence to back up their primary claim:

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

Of course, this does not prove DeLay's innocence in any way, and I think the invocation of Joe McCarthy by Jim Ellis's attorney was clearly a bit of bluster. But remember that there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence--to allege that a document exists, then say you don't have it, then manufacture a list that you say is "similar" does not seem like the kind of way to build a case strong enough to overcome this presumption. But indict away--clearly the mainstream media has lost its appetite for reporting the story now that it's not going "the right way," and the damage to DeLay's reputation (such as it was) is done.

Tags: DeLay, Tom DeLay, Politics, Republicans, Congress, Ethics

Congratulations FIDE Champion Veselin Topalov

Congratulations to Bulgarian Grandmaster Veselin Topalov for his magnificent performance at the FIDE World Chess Championships in Argentina. Topalov represents that kind of fighting, knife's edge chess that you don't see so much of these days, and it's about time he got some real recognition for his work. I was perturbed that a bizarre tiebreak system cheated him out of sharing the top honors with retiring Garry Kasparov at the Linares tournament earlier this year; I was more upset when Kasparov, explaining how he came to lose his last game as a professional player, said "What happened today had very little to do with my opponent. I simply collapsed under the pressure of playing my last game." Toppy had you beat in that game, Kaspy--be charitable. Sorry, I've had that on my mind since the spring.

This is of course not to say that Topalov is "World Chess Champion," as anyone familiar with the state of international chess will tell you. However, with luck the Bulgarian's thumping victory will accomplish two things: first, it may finally lead to a real unification match with flagging Vladimir Kramnik, who won the genuine World Championship title fair and square from Kasparov in 2000; second, it may be the last we hear from FIDE's 2004 "champion" Rustam Kasimjanov who, to be fair, had one great tournament in him--but in the 2004 Libya tournament, he didn't have Topalov gunning for him.

Smurf-Bomb Video Link

After a few days of trying, I have managed to locate a link (click here to view in .wmv format) to the recently announced UNICEF Smurf-Bombing video. It's embedded in what appears to be a Belgian news program, but you get the picture. I was, frankly, prepared for something far more graphic; indeed, this looks very much like some college student's joke. I think it entirely misses the mark, and I say this as someone who spent a fair amount of energy on the Smurfs as a kid.

Thanks to Moonage Political Webdream for posting this in the first place.

Tags: Smurf, Smurfs, UNICEF, Video

Schroeder's Parthian Shot

So it finally appears that Angela Merkel will succeed Gerhard Schroeder as Chancellor of Germany, ending a saga of Floridian proportions. But as seems to be the case these days, it's impossible for a leader to step down from a post graciously; instead, we see that the level of a person's character can be inferred from the degree to which they attempt to disguise the insults they hurl. Here's a sample from a recent Schroeder news conference (emphasis mine):

Schroeder made his comments in a speech to a trade union in Hanover in which he warned of the dangers of eroding the welfare functions of the state.

"I can think of a recent disaster that shows what happens when a country neglects its duties of state towards its people," said Schroeder, who will soon cede his post to conservative rival Angela Merkel.

"My post as chancellor, which I still hold, does not allow me to name that country but you all know that I am talking about America," Schroeder said to laughter and applause.

Ha ha. Very classy. Of course, this is not the first time Schroeder has talked about Katrina; indeed, he has on various occasions favorably contrasted Germany's response to its 2002 floods with the US response to the recent hurricane. Not to belabor this point, or spend more time than necessary on the loser of an election thousands of miles away, but here's a very instructive photo comparison I found at Davids Medienkritik:

The "Intelligent Design" Debate: I Think I've Had Enough

Let me confess something: I am a practicing Catholic who is very much a fan of science. I know there are some of you out there who will find this difficult to believe; but for my part, it's entirely clear that an omnipotent Creator will make something really mind-bogglingly complex which will enlighten those who unravel it.

At the same time, I don't have any interest in public schools teaching my children about where and how the hand of the Divine makes itself manifest in the world. That's my job, and my Church's. Heck, I was at a parents' open house the other night and got a little worked up about the school's "credo" encouraging kids to be respectful and good citizens. But, with the encouragement of my wife, I shut up about these things.

Then something comes along such as Dr. Robert Schwartz's "Perspectives" editorial in the October 6, 2005 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Entitled "Faith Healers and Physicians — Teaching Pseudoscience by Mandate," it is a fairly vicious attack on the proponents of intelligent design, which the author considers "an insidious menace" that puts its advocates on par with the godless Joseph Stalin. The author's point, apart from the assertion that intelligent-design theory is crap, is that it will keep doctors from looking for the root causes of things, instead stopping at some arbitrary point and saying "Put down your tools and stop looking--I guess God just makes it happen." This is damaging, apparently, because a knowledge of the origins of a process are necessary to medical care and research. Hogwash. While physicians hate to be compared to mechanics, I think it's appropriate here: it's very much like a mechanic saying, "I don't know where this car came from, so I can't understand how it works."

In short, we have a prominent scientist managing to be offensive and condescending without actually saying anything. Indeed, he says himself of one opponent

Philip Johnson...can accurately pinpoint many problems that the theory of evolution has not come close to solving. His criticisms have merit, and his focus on precisely those things that we do not yet know blocks any rational dialogue.

A very scientific assessment. The author cannot answer the charges of his critics; therefore, the discussion cannot be rational. Dr. Schwartz would do well to look back on the history of science. We get taught in grade school, for instance, how Copernicus and Galileo showed a heliocentric system, whereas their predecessors were totally wrong. Well, this is true; but it also needs to be stated that the Ptolemaic system was very elegant and comprehensive, save for a few kinks that could not be adequately worked out. Or a better example: Newtonian mechanics cannot adequately account for Mercury's orbit, while Einstein's theories on general relativity can. What if scientists had argued that the fact Newton's theories had holes prevented any further discussion of the problem?

All that said, I do not believe the primary argument in intelligent design theory holds any water at all. Namely, the idea that we are the product of an extremely improbable process; so improbable that it could not have come about without divine intervention. I will say here as well, hogwash. A natural assumption given human nature, but not convincing. Improbable things happen all the time, such as people winning the lottery; improbable, but not impossible. From the standpoint of the lottery winner there is a disbelief that anything so rare could possibly happen to him, but does he say "this could not have happened without divine help"? Well, maybe. But the point is that it does not require divine intervention--just a lucky roll of the dice. Getting struck by lightning may be a one-in-a-million shot, but there are people who have gotten hit multiple times. Really weird, improbable things happen...are we to say that "it could not have happened" just because we're standing on the other end of the improbability?

Tags: Intelligent design, Evolution

I've been meaning to say this very thing

One of the problems with having both children and a business to look after (and it should be understood that this is my favorite euphemistic phrase for "laziness") is that, by the time I get around to putting my thoughts out there, some other schlub has invariably gotten to it first. In this case, it is Charles Krauthammer, columnist at the Washington Post, who has used far better words than I could knit together to question the wisdom of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court:

By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness.

I cannot help but agree. My take on the Roberts nomination was that Bush was putting forth a fairly plain-vanilla prospect as something of a peace offering, a move which would allow him to appoint a more conservative justice in round two. By offering us a virtual unknown (and for all the left's hemming and hawing about "what do we know about Roberts?" the answer was quite a bit), a close ally with a strange recent history of political shifts, a person who was in addition to all other things Bush's personal attorney, Bush has made what I consider both a lazy and (dare I say it?) cowardly decision. And this fact, more than the question of the credentials of the nominee, is what troubles me.

Say what you want about Bush, but he has not heretofore shown himself to be a man who thinks small. In his tax-reform proposals, his response to 9/11, his dealings with Iraq--this is a man who thinks and acts in bold strokes, often informed by his moral center. (I understand that many of you on the left will think that I've hit on the crux of the problem, but that's a subject for another day.) The Miers nomination, on a personal level, is simply disillusioning. I don't know whether the vicious Katrina backlash has made Bush gun-shy, or whether he was never the man he pretended to be. He just doesn't have the stomach for a fight--a good fight, one that he should wage--and his uncontroversial nominee (already praised by Senate minority leader Harry Reid, for God's sake!) is the prime piece of evidence.

Tags: Harriet Miers, Supreme Court

How can a billion people be so consistently misunderstood?

I came across this article about the Catholic Church today and was amazed--a group of bishops in Britain has released a paper which seems to state absolutely nothing new in terms of Catholic dogma, and yet it is big news:

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Let's be clear here: the Church has long taught that large parts of the Bible can only be understood as allegory or in other literary senses. The fetish with the Bible as inerrant history is a product of the Fundamentalists. They would probably argue strenuously that Alexander visited Jerusalem (as it is claimed in Maccabees) when the Catholic Church's position is more like "so?" Check out any of the Church's writings on the subject and you'll see. But I also have little patience for people that look to apocalyptic literature for prophecy, rather than using it in its proper context as a code sign of conditions at the time of composition.

There is also a bit of a slam on "intelligent design," linking it incorrectly and unnecessarily to Biblical passages: "Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing 'intelligent design' to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began."

But the worst of this article is its misstatement concerning Pope St. Pius X (above), whose crusade against Modernism is often referenced by modern commentators but which is almost always misunderstood. The article says

Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

And yet this has very little to do with the truth: St. Pius was not opposed to such scholarship, but only the notion that scripture could only be understood in this way. What he abhored, as is indicated by his famous Oath Against Modernism (1910), is a scholar who "with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm."

The Oath makes for excellent reading and is, frankly, extremely relevant today, given the current fashionability of the argument that eternal truths somehow need to "evolve" with the times.

Tags: Catholic, Catholicism, Pius X, Bible

Excellence Watch: Orson Scott Card

I came across this review for the film Serenity the other day, and simply had to share it. The review itself is an excellent work of prose, as befits such a well-respected author. But what struck me was the degree to which it reads like a bit of a love letter, the kind of encomium I have not seen since I stumbled across David Mamet's obituary for Patrick O'Brian ("And I will not say I cried at [supporting character Bonden's] death, but I will not say I did not").

But more than that, Card makes a startling statement regarding Serenity:

I walked into this movie reasonably aware of the advance word-of-mouth (though not obsessively so) and only as the film actually began this afternoon, the day of its premier, did it occur to me that I had not heard a whisper of a breath of the actual plot of the movie. All I heard was, "It's great, you'll love it."

Well, guess what.

It's great.

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

I don't know that I disagree with the man; and in any event, who am I to doubt the assessment of the author of Ender's Game? Plus, I can't stop giggling at his conclusion:

So stop reading this. Go get your tickets. See this movie.

Or don't. Play it safe. Stay home. Watch reruns of Full House. That was a really funny, heartwarming TV series and it's just a shame the kids have all grown up and now we can never have the feature film with the original cast.

Tags: Orson Scott Card, Serenity, Movie Reviews, Firefly

The DeLay Defamation Dance

OK, the other day I heard that former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been indicted again and I stopped for a moment. The indictment was for money laundering, so the televised "news brief" said; and I said a considered "Huh. What do you know?" Of course, as we now know this "second indictment" was really DA Ronnie Earle's attempt at damage control since the crime with which Earle charged DeLay did not exist at the time of the alleged infraction.

The short version:

Dick DeGuerin, one of DeLay's attorneys, asserted on Monday that the new money laundering charge was brought this week because Earle realized that last week's conspiracy charge rested on an erroneous interpretation of the law. He said the crime of conspiracy was not covered by the state election law at the time of the alleged violation, in late 2002.

In his defense, Earle states that the new indictment was the result of "new information," despite the fact that the investigation has been ongoing for years; moreover, the media seem to have grudgingly accepted the validity Dick DeGuerin's argument, if only on this point.

But even further beyond all this, there has now emerged some news that Earle presented his evidence to one grand jury which refused to indict DeLay. I'm no lawyer, but this gives me some pause:

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

And so, unsatisfied with this result, Earle presented the case to yet another grand jury, which returned an indictment in four hours. Now of course, I accept the possibility that there is some damning new evidence, and DeLay is no hero to me. But the left's supposition that the second grand jury refused to indict simply because it was on its last day seems to carry little water given the fact that the third was convinced in only four hours. All this should be a spark for a round of head-scratching by all critical observers, but I've heard very little of it in the mainstream media.

Tags: DeLay, Politics, Bush, Texas

Movie Review: Serenity

In 2002, Fox began broadcasting a new science-fiction program called Firefly. I remember there being some sort of buzz about it at the time, as it was the brainchild of Joss Whedon (the force behind the cult hit Buffy the Vampire Slayer). A week or so afterward, a friend of mine wrote and asked me, "I hear this show is supposed to be the 'next big thing'--is it?" to which I (never a Buffy fan) replied with a breathless "Oh, yeah!"

As with most things I fall for, Firefly disappeared quickly. Only 11 of its 14 completed episodes were aired; and those were shown out of order and often preempted to the point where it was impossible to follow the plot. I shrugged and moved on with my life. Indeed, I'd completely forgotten about it until about a month ago, when I stumbled across an episode on the SciFi network and discovered a) there was a rabid "Browncoat" fanbase that had never given up on the show and b) thanks to stellar DVD sales and the Whedon name, Universal Pictures had gambled $40 million in order to make a motion picture from the failed TV series. That night I went out to get the DVDs, and let me tell you, in all candor, that the combined shock and amazement (and the fact that the series was better than I'd remembered) pretty much made me explode directly in my pants.

But this is supposed to be a movie review, so let me say a few words about the Serenity setup. Five centuries hence, humanity has moved itself en masse to a new solar system, full of "terraformed" planets and moons. Some are rich and prosperous, some have been neglected by the central government and wallow in poverty. Mal Reynolds captains a not-so-legal freighter operation (on a ship named "Serenity") out here on the frontier, harboring a personal grudge against the authoritarian Alliance and trying to find paying jobs before his rickety ship breaks down for good. His crew have been denigrated by reviewers as archetypes (and they are, but the advantage is that you grow fond of them very quickly), but they're fun to watch. Serenity revolves around young River Tam, on whom the Alliance has experimented with startling results. She's now something of a walking weapon in girl form; her brother Simon manages to break her out of a lab and the Alliance wants her back--at all costs. Serenity's crew discover the danger River poses--to themselves and others--but in the end decides to hide her from the forces closing in. What ensues is a fast-paced, action-filled adventure that also has the advantages of a compelling plot and entertaining dialog and characterization.

One word of caution, though: Firefly/Serenity is different than the sci-fi you're used to seeing. A lot different. There are no aliens, no faster-than-light drives, no fancy techno-babble...it's about humans, doing things like humans. And most of the action takes place on the frontier of inhabited space, where advanced technology is so scarce that they ride horses, shoot (admittedly souped-up) six-guns, and say things like fixin' and messin'. It's weird without being jarring, and continually reminds you that this is a different sort of story. A Whedon quote about Star Wars helps to describe his overall approach: "My version is that Han Solo walked into the bar five minutes later and never found out about the Force or the rebellion and still had to make a living and still had the Hutt after him. It was the lived-in quality. This guy has the quality of 'we have no higher purpose, no Force that surrounds us and guides us, we only have each other and a crappy little ship. That's much more interesting to me..."

I was, frankly, prepared for the film to be terrible. One is most forgiving to the things one loves best, and I steeled myself for the possibility that (as was the case with The Phantom Menace) I would have to stand behind something that was a real stinker out of a sense of loyalty. But, even in the light of day, I say with all honesty that Serenity was a real achievement: gripping, thought-provoking, funny, and occasionally wrenching. Some reviewers have stated that you can't enjoy the movie without being a fanatic about the series, and this is a lie. I brought my brother to the show last night; and although he asked me "What should I know?" I kept him completely in the dark as an experiment. He came out entertained, with a clear sense of what had happened, and not asking a lot of questions like "So who was that guy supposed to be?" The movie, in short, is very accessible. Plus, it's really, really good.

Tags: Serenity, Firefly