Bilmon says it all:
Franken can laugh all the way to the bank about this one. You literally couldn’t buy book publicity like this.
as Fox loses the first and hopefully the last round of their lawsuit. Then again, Franken probably hopes they appeal.
Update: Mad Kane has some more thoughts on this and reminds us that it is not quite over.
Pejman argues that John Conyers’ recent criticism of Ashcroft’s Patriot Act tour is too much:
I understand and respect those who disagree with the USA Patriot Act, but this goes beyond a mere difference of opinion. Conyers is stating that Ashcroft can’t even talk about the measure in speeches across the country. This is just ridiculous, and Conyers’s position is not saved by claiming that Ashcroft is “lobbying.” How can the activity qualify as lobbying when the Patriot Act was passed nearly two years ago?
I do not know if there is legislation that supports Conyers position but if there is I do not like it any more than similar laws (or regulations) that, for example, prohibit recipients of federal funds from providing information on, say condom use, to sexually active clients.
We thrive on a free flow of information and opinions, even information and opinions that we disagree with. Ashcroft should get to talk and he should make a choice to talk to the larger community not just law enforcement folks in closed or semi-closed sessions.
Is Ashcroft lobbying and does Pejman’s argument that the Patriot Act was passed two years ago so it can’t be lobbying hold up? Maybe not. I think that Ashcroft is concerned that congress may move to make changes he does not want. Why else does he, for example, make stops in the home district of the only GOP congressman who voted against it?
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is coming to Boise on Monday to talk up the Patriot Act in the home district of the only GOP congressman who spoke against it.
Ashcroft kicked off a monthlong speaking tour of more than a dozen cities this week to deflect growing opposition to parts of the Patriot Act.
Trying to deflect growing opposition may not be lobbying but it does walk just a little bit like it.
The other thing Ashcroft is undoubtably trying to do is build support for the pending Victory Act. Ashcroft is lobbying just as bush is currently on the campaign trail (is his re-election committee paying for this?). They are doing what public officials have done for ever and should continue to do even if we disagree with them: make their cases to the people.
Amy, at The Fifty Minute Hour, asks why thugs like Idi Amin live out a cush life instead of spending it spread out on a hill of fire ants(my words, not hers):
The current theory among many Ugandans is that there’s a Muslim conspiracy to protect dictators afoot:
“Why no extradition and trial? One Ugandan theory argues that the Saudis simply will not let an African Muslim potentate be toppled, tried and convicted by a predominantly Christian African state. That’s an argument loaded with religious and ethnic explosives, too hot and politically incorrect to touch. However, East Africans I know believe it. Post 9-11, it may not seem so outlandish.”
The argument, true or not, raises an obvious question. Why is the international community willing to bow to the will of Saudi Arabia on the issue of human rights in Africa? The Saudis certainly have an opinion as to what should happen to dictators like Amin, but why does their view prevail?
Read her interesting answers here. Andrew Case, in the comment thread, suggests what I think may often be the answer: the unbothered retirement was the payoff for the thug(s) to step down.
Matthew Yglesias supports a new “smart card” drivers license if drinking age limitations are removed:
In a rational country we would let teenagers drink and then I’d be cracking down on fake IDs in good conscience,…
I agree 100% with this position but I don’t support a tradeoff with new federally mandated drivers licenses.
The text of the 2002 bill, HR 4633, which NDOL says will be reintroduced is here. Its purpose:
… to establish standards for State programs for the issuance of drivers� licenses and identification cards, and for other purposes.
I don’t understand how congress gets to set state standards for this (it’s late, so help me out here) or how the $300 million bribe included in the bill to help the states implement the new smart cards would be near enough to entice the states to give up their authority to the feds.
There are other aspects of the proposed legislation that bother me much more.
This is a good day to go over and read Sisyphus Shrugged. Yea, I know, every day is a good day over there but today is a really good day. I’m only going to link the current most recent post of the day but you’ll want to read them all.
She has been busy discussing plans by the bushies to use a banned substance to fumigate incoming cargo containers, the FBI, the Hornstine faux valedictorian, the dem’s ‘responsibility’ for the recent blackout, and Ashcroft’s victory act.
And why stop at today. If you haven’t been there for a while read some of the back stuff too, for instance yesterday’s post on Mel Gibson’s The Passion.