When Are The Democrats Going To Realize

That they would be much, much better off without William Jefferson? The more that comes out about this case, the more of an embarrassment he becomes to the entire party. The man should be given his day in court and have every protection the constitution calls for. He is also an enormous political liability and is frankly making everyone on Capitol Hill look bad.

Last Aug. 3, FBI agents searched Jefferson's New Orleans home while the congressman and family members were present. Kent said she was assigned to watch Jefferson and his family during the search, according to her affidavit accompanying the government motion yesterday.

She said she observed him looking at several pieces of paper on a table. At one point, she said, he asked to see a copy of the subpoena.

"After a copy had been brought to him and he reviewed it, I observed Congressman Jefferson then take the subpoena and the documents he had been reading earlier and place them together under his elbow on the kitchen table."

At one point, she said, he moved to the living room, which had just been searched, and sat on a recliner. While sitting, he slipped the subpoena and the documents into a blue bag that he knew had already been searched, Kent's affidavit said.

"After several minutes, I approached Congressman Jefferson and told him that I needed to look at the documents that he had placed into the bag," the agent stated. "Congressman Jefferson told me the documents were subpoenas."

He finally pulled out the documents that were from a B.K. Son. The search warrant had asked for all communications between Jefferson and Son, the affidavit said. Son is the chief technology officer of iGate.

All this rush to defend Congressional privilege is also making the Congress look bad. Nobody should be above the law. Least of all the elected officials of this country. Instead of defending Jefferson, the Democrats should be looking to pressure him to step down - or at minimum step aside from his committee posts until after his day in court.

Well, As If I Needed Another Reason

To dislike John McCain. He canceled a campaign fundraiser appearance for a Republican in a close race because of the candidate's stance on illegal immigration.

SAN DIEGO - Arizona Sen. John McCain on Tuesday canceled an appearance for a Republican congressional candidate who has attacked his opponent for supporting McCain's immigration bill.

McCain, R-Ariz., was scheduled to speak Wednesday at a breakfast fundraiser for Brian Bilbray, who is locked in a close runoff race with Democrat Francine Busby for the San Diego-area seat left vacant by disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The event was expected to raise at least $65,000.

The winner of the June 6 special election will fill the remaining seven months left in Cunningham's term.

In an e-mail sent to the Bilbray campaign, McCain spokesman Craig Goldman acknowledged that McCain and Bilbray "disagree on some of the issues related to immigration reform." He said McCain did not want his appearance to distract from Bilbray's campaign.

The e-mail reiterated McCain's endorsement of Bilbray, and said the senator's Straight Talk America political action committee would make the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to Bilbray's campaign. Goldman did not return phone and e-mail messages left seeking comment.

McCain has a bad reputation already for abusing people who disagree with him. This just makes him look even smaller. McCain sure is damaging himself at the moment.

The Truth About The Senate Immigration Bill

Writing in today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson finally casts some light on one of the dirty little secrets in the immigration "reform" bill passed by the Senate. Now, this information has been out in the blogosphere for some time now, but the MSM has, up until now at least, ignored it completely.

The Senate passed legislation last week that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) hailed as "the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history." You might think that the first question anyone would ask is how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find the answer in the news columns of The Post, the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Yet the estimates do exist and are fairly startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million.

One job of journalism is to inform the public about what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill's sponsors didn't publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn't fill the void. It's safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who voted for the legislation don't have a clue as to the potential overall increase in immigration.

Samuelson goes on to discuss what the impacts of this change will - and will not - bring about.

No one can contend that the United States needs expanded immigration to prevent the population from shrinking. Our population is aging but not shrinking. With present immigration policies, the Census Bureau projects a U.S. population of 420 million in 2050, up from 296 million in 2005. Under the Senate bill, the figure for 2050 would expand by many millions. Another dubious argument is that much higher immigration would dramatically improve economic growth. From 2007 to 2016, the Senate bill might increase the economy's growth rate by about 0.1 percentage point annually, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That's tiny; it's a rounding error.

The doubling of legal immigration under the Senate bill that I cited at the outset comes from a previously unreported estimate made by White House economists. Because the president praised the Senate bill, the administration implicitly favors a big immigration expansion. The White House estimate could be low. Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation has a higher figure. The CBO has a projection that the White House describes as close to its own. But all the forecasts envision huge increases, diverging only because they make different assumptions of how the Senate bill would operate in practice.

I have yet to hear an explanation for why some of our Senators think we need to more than double the number of immigrants into the country. Worse, the media seems intent on keeping the entire issue from becoming public knowledge. Samuelson does not blame this exactly on left-biased media, but more on a groupthink.

Rector's explanation is that the media's "liberal" bias creates a pro-immigration slant. I think it's more complicated. Stories generally mirror the prevailing political debate, which has concentrated on "amnesty" for existing illegal immigrants and the guest-worker program. Increases in other immigration categories were largely ignored. Reporters also cover legislative stories as sports contests — who's winning, who's losing — rather than delve into dreary matters of substance. We've had endless stories on how immigration might affect congressional elections and whether there will be a House-Senate "deal."

But note the irony: The White House's projected increases of legal immigration (20 million) are about twice the level of existing illegal immigrants (estimated between 10 million and 12 million). Yet, coverage overlooks the former. Here, I think, Rector has a point. Whether or not the bias is "liberal," groupthink is a powerful force in journalism. Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted. The result is selective journalism that reflects poorly on our craft and detracts from democratic dialogue.

This is, indeed, very dangerous. It's also something myself and a lot of others have been saying for a while. Slanted news coverage is a bad thing in and of itself, regardless which way it is slanted. It robs the public of the necessary information to make good decisions.

Hate Groups

I think this Time article is conflating two separate issues. By reporting on some increased activity by white supremacist organizations over the illegal immigration issue, Time implies that the Minutemen are somehow aligned with the hate groups. Opposition to illegal immigration is not primarily racially motivated, I think. Are there some people who are motivated by that? Sure, on both sides of the issue, I might add.

With immigration perhaps America's most volatile issue, a troubling backlash has erupted among its most fervent foes. There are, of course, the Minutemen, the self-appointed border vigilantes who operate in several states. And now groups of militiamen, white supremacists and neo-Nazis are using resentment over the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. as a potent rallying cry. "The immigration furor has been critical to the growth we've seen" in hate groups, says Mark Potok, head of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The center counts some 800 racist groups operating in the U.S. today, a 5% spurt in the past year and a 33% jump from 2000. "They think they've found an issue with racial overtones and a real resonance with the American public," says Potok, "and they are exploiting it as effectively as they can."

Notice how the article just ties the Minutemen right in with the hate groups? I don't like that particular technique. It's a way to conflate things while maintaining the facade of impartial reporting.

I think fringe groups like the neo-Nazis and the Klan bear very close watching. They do not represent America to me. I don't think the Minutemen are in the same category.

Why The EU Will Not Survive

Frankly, the European Union has always bemused me a little. I understand the desire to essentially provide an umbrella federation of European states similar to the way the United States is organized. The problem, as I see it, has always been that the EU appears to be designed and organized more for the benefit of the bureaucrats who run it than for anything else. It's incredibly over-burdened with frankly ridiculous regulation. It's court system is bizarre, allowing Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be thrown out of her building is just one example.

Refusing to cooperate in security matters with the United States is another.

The European Court of Justice has annulled an EU-US agreement requiring airlines to transfer passenger data to the US authorities.

The court said the decision to hand over the data, including addresses and credit card details, lacked an "appropriate legal basis".

Officials in both the US and Europe feel something can still be worked out.

Haditha Roundup

Mary Katherine Ham has put together a thorough roundup of coverage on Haditha. I agree that the quotes by Representative Kline are out of line. They do not rise to the same level as what Murtha continues to do pretty much daily now, but nobody should be pronouncing guilt before an investigation is complete, much less a trial.

Give the Marines the same rights you would expect for yourself in any court proceeding. Keep in mind that media reports are very often wrong - these days especially.

UPDATE: To prove the point that sometimes media reports are outright fabrications, go visit Frau Budgie over at Red Hot Cuppa Politics. She has evidence.

All In All, You’re Just Another Brick In The Wall

The New York Times takes note of the grassroots campaign which has inundated Congress with over 10,000 bricks so far. Meant to symbolize support for a wall, the campaign has been organized by the Send-A-Brick Project.

Leaders of the campaign, which has delivered an estimated 10,000 bricks since it began in April, said they had hit on the idea as a way to emphasize the benefits of a fence along the border with Mexico.

In an age when professionally planned lobbying campaigns have long since overwhelmed spontaneous grass-roots pressure, organizers of the brick brigade said they also saw an opportunity to deliver a missive not easily discarded.

"E-mails are so common now," said Kirsten Heffron, a Virginian who is helping coordinate the effort. "It is really easy for the office to say duly noted, hit delete and never think about it again."

If the impact was notable, so were the logistical difficulties, particularly given the mail screening and other protective measures put into effect at the Capitol after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

I rather suspect the campaign is having an effect. Many Republicans voted against the  measure the Senate just passed. I imagine it will stiffen resistance in the House when the conferencing starts. I've been saying all along that building a fence and increasing border security will make a lot of other compromises possible. It will also be a winner at the polls (CNN skewing of samples aside). One quote in the article is something that really should get more attention by the folks on Capitol Hill:

"Given the approval ratings of Congress these days, I guess we should all be grateful the bricks are coming through the mail, not the window," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.

There's still time to avoid the bricks through the windows, folks. You really might want to think about that.

By the way, it looks like the bricks will be donated to Habitat For Humanity, a nice place for them to end up.

The Tipper Of The Iceberg

It seems Al Gore gave an interview to the Guardian over in Britain where he's come out with the harshest criticism yet against President Bush. In it he attacked the right wing extremism Bush has brought in:

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

I mean, it just wouldn't do to promote censorship, right? It wouldn't do to play to the right when you thought it expedient. then play left when that didn't work out.

Not to worry, Al's got a whole new shtick!

The Greenpeace Syndrome

Coming to a theater near you, the blockbuster, must-see movie of the summer! Starring Jack Lemonhead and Hanoi Jane Hiltonhead, this thriller will have you on the edge of your seat!

Greenpeace, those wacky, fun-loving folks, went to Philadelphia to protest against an appearance by President Bush promoting nuclear power. They wanted everyone to know how deadly and dangerous the Limerick reactors (that's a nuclear facility, for those who don't know) were, so they put out a press release:

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.

You really can't make this stuff up. Lord knows, I'd like to be able to, but you just can't……. Watching Greenpeace burning it's way merrily down into the center of the earth. Someone get marshmallows!

All The News That’s Fit To Skew

USA Today has an "analysis" of polls on illegal immigration. I was going to spend some time disassembling it, but it turns out Dan Riehl at Riehl World View already did. So go over and read his dissection.

This Isn’t Good

German authorities have detained three women on suspicion that they were trying to go to Iraq to become suicide bombers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that German intelligence agencies have prevented three German women from travelling to Iraq in recent weeks. The women, who have close contacts to the Islamist scene in Germany and at least one whom has converted to Islam, came to the attention of intelligence agencies after one of them had announced on an Internet site that she intended to blow herself and her child up in Iraq.

After the Web posting were spotted, Germany's domestic and foreign intelligence agencies mounted an intense search for the three women. One of them was located in Berlin, the other two are believed to come from southern Germany. The Berlin woman's child was taken away from her and she has been put in a psychiatric clinic. The two other women were also prevented from leaving Germany. One of them is also believed to have a child.

There have been stories about this sort of thing - that Islamists were trying to recruit Europeans - for some time now. A Belgian woman did detonate herself near Baghdad last year.

Contracts Written In Blood!

No, we mean literally written in blood. A contract dispute is in court in California right now in which the plaintiff's lawyer believes extra weight should be given to the unusual contract because it is written in the defendant's own blood.

Kim's lawsuit claims that Son used his own blood to write out a promise to repay money that Kim lent him. Kim sued in Orange County Superior Court to enforce the promise.

"I've been reading contract cases for about 40 years, and I've never seen one" written in blood, said Joseph M. Perillo, a professor at Fordham University School of Law who has co-authored and edited contracts textbooks.

According to the lawsuit, Kim invested about $170,000 in Son's Korean corporation but never received the returns he was promised.

Son's attorney, Vladimir Khiterer, acknowledges his client wrote out a repayment promise in blood after the pair went to a bar in October 2004 and drank alcohol while discussing their dispute. But Khiterer said Son wrote that he would repay to "the best of my ability," and the defense has argued in court papers that the document is not a valid contract.

What is not reported here is exactly how much alcohol was consumed. We're guessing more than one beer. Anyway, Kim's lawyer wants the contract to be considered extra special because of the unusual materials involved. Now we aren't exactly contract experts around here, but doesn't enforcement of a contract written in human blood generally require special equipment? Like this maybe?

That darn coconut still bugs us, though.

Unusual Litter Problem

Police in Torrington, Connecticut would like to speak with whoever is leaving the unusual litter lying about town. They aren't exactly saying it's illegal or anything, but they sure want to talk to the person or persons leaving the severed goat heads in various places.

Last week, police found two severed goat heads, a coconut and a pentagram drawn in chalk in a driveway of a home, police Lt. Francis Balzano said.

"We're not saying this is illegal," Balzano said. "We would just like to know what it means."

They find these things several times a year apparently. We suggest it might be a good starting point to look for the rest of the goats, though.

And the coconut confuses us all the way around.

Just Call Him Bob

A Malaysian man was accused of having an affair after his wife found a text message on his cell phone from another woman. The man took great offense to this accusation and promptly thought of a way to prove he was faithful. He cut off his own penis.

The man was heard by his son shouting that he wanted to prove he was not having an affair, the New Straits Times reported.

The assertion was followed by loud screams and the man emerged from his room bleeding profusely, his 14-year-old son quoted as saying. His wife rushed him to hospital.

Doctors reattached the severed organ.

We here at Blue Crab Boulevard have no desire to have prove our faithfulness. So we will avoid anything that might be misconstrued. Ever.

UPDATE On Norton Antivirus Problem

A new patch has been released to fix a fatal flaw in Norton Anti-virus. It is available using Norton LiveUpdate, so you might want to run it if you use Norton. The earlier post is here.

(I still think Kaspersky is better).