Stones Cry Out

March 22, 2006

Let's go to the video tape

Hugh Hewitt was on CNN last night, being interviewed by Anderson Cooper along with Time's Michael Ware and CNN's Nic Robertson. Hugh recaps the interview and I have to agree that Anderson is does indeed run a "fair show." I did get the sense that he was going out of his way to let Hugh talk when Ware was spinning out of control. However, was Anderson in charge of the Iraq footage being shown next to Hugh and the others during the segment?

The discussion was about the portrayal of Iraq by the news media, which is something I've seen covered on a few channels in the last day or so. But while Hugh was arguing that the MSM is out to support a bad version of events there, all the Iraq footage was of burned out cars, and troops investigating other sorts of Baghdad violence. So, while they were talking about the media's eagerness to show more bad then good, they were showing all bad.

Maybe the segment producer knew that Hugh was gonna mention Eason Jordan and he couldn't restrain himself from presenting such lopsided video feed.

Posted by Abigail at 03:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 18, 2006

Some signals are not as "strong and clear" as they should be

I've discovered Regime Change Iran and its round up of news relating to a country with "suspect" nuclear aspirations. It's mostly links and quotes of news articles, but the subtleties of the Iran situation are often left out of major news headlines - so having an extensive list of articles to peruse is quite useful.

The real question is...What kind of useful things are the articles describing? The answer: apparently not much. Friday's Daily Briefing (posted on Thursday) said John Bolton was "very encouraged" about the Security Council discussions on Iran. Well, sure. But what does that mean?

Again...not much. On Friday, RCI linked a Fox News Article quoting Bolton as saying "The mood of the discussion is certainly in the direction of a strong and clear signal to Iran on the part of the Security Council."

I agree that the signal is strong, but I think the content of the signal is more important than the strength. What is the Security Council strongly signaling?

Here's what I know they are strongly signaling:
* We are talking about Iran
* We are talking about Iran and its nuclear weapons program
* We are determined to keep talking about it
* We are so determined that we are not complaining about the fact that Russia and China are trying to drag this out as long as possible

Fox assumes early in the article that the council is determined that this strong and clear signal will be concerning Iran's "suspect nuclear program."

No kidding. But what is contained in the signal? That's the whole point. The UN is already communicating a bunch of things just by sitting around and having discussions. When it finally releases a formal statement, I don't know how strong and clear it will be or what it will ask but I'm not all that hopeful. Mostly because of this last paragraph:

The diplomats will try to come up with a "clear strategy" on what happens next, Russia's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov told The Associated Press. "We need to have an agreed way ahead within the IAEA, in the Security Council."

You see? They are planning a strategy about what to do next. In other words, they aren't deciding what to do next, they are planning about making a plan about what to do next.

Springing into action indeed.

This reminds me of something I read just this morning from James Lileks' 2005 roundup in The American Enterprise:

Iran announces it will no longer allow inspectors into the Khomeini Memorial Peaceful Nuclear Research Facility for Hastening the Destruction of Israel. European diplomats threaten to take the matter to the U.N. Subcommittee of the Task Force for Occasionally Threatening to Issue a Strongly-Worded Report. But the group's next meeting isn't until 2007, and it must first take up the horror of Israel's security fence. Iran promises to allow inspections in exchange for 500 million Euros, payable in coins of enriched uranium. The E.U. agrees, with the condition that the interest rate on the loan will be adjusted upward if Iran makes nuclear bombs. If they actually detonate a bomb there would be an immediate balloon payment, make no mistake about it.

"Occasionally Threatening to Issue a Strongly-Worded Report"?
Yeah. That sounds about right.

Posted by Abigail at 01:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2006

International Energy Games

This is interesting:

Ministries Agree on Bill To Limit Foreign Investment in Russian Economy
When I saw that headline I thought it odd because everything else I've read has indicated that Russia wants to use the possibilities of foreign investment as leverage in global policy making. That is, if European countries like France and Germany become dependent on Russian oil and gas resources, then those countries would be more likely to side with Russia against the US or whomever else Russia contended with diplomatically. But Russia cannot afford to keep drilling for oil and gas because of its weak infrastructure. So it needs investment. Countries like China would be happy to invest, because China wants the same thing from Russia - dependency and an ally on the world stage. So, I thought, maybe Russia is getting wise.

But then of course, I read the article:

Vladimir Taraskin, director of the Industry and Energy Ministry's legal relations department, said that the law may come into force in July 2007. He said that the draft law deals with 39 strategic types of activity, which are divided into five sectors: the space industry, the nuclear power sector, arms and military technology production, special technology and aviation.

I've thought about it a bit, and I don't think gas and oil fit into any of these categories. So basically, they are limiting investment, but only in smaller areas that will not affect its ability to make alliances or dependencies.

And as for resources for those industries? Mother Russia isn't giving up control of those either:

"There are other criteria covering monopoly activity and the development of resource fields of federal significance," Taraskin said.

And just to make us think that maybe they are going to bend on the energy issue, the article quote Taraskin as saying:

There is a proposal to include the electricity sector in the draft law also - concerning wholesale generating companies, but this is only being discussed

I don't know what his definition of "discussed" is, but I'd imagine that any discussion isn't all that serious. The ministries can have all the discussions they want, but there happens to be a G8 energy conference this week, where they are seriously discussing foreign investment in Russia.

On Monday Russia was laying out its demands concerning foreign investment in the energy sector.

"We have set ourselves the task of providing the world with energy resources on a reliable, long-term basis," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the conference.

Notice, they have done it themselves. They want to be the ones to provide energy to the world - and I think they want the rest of us to pay them to do it.

It's no secret that Europe does not want to fall into this dependency trap, but they have few other options. And that is no secret to Russia:

"Gazprom was, is and will be a reliable guarantor of gas supplies to Europe," [Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander]Medvedev said...

"[EU] dependency is only going to increase," Medvedev said. "There are only four sources of gas in the world: Qatar, Iran, Algeria and Russia."

Wow. Quite a group. Russia's economy isn't great, but it's gas resources are, and they probably have one of the most stable energy infrastructures. And once again, they know it too -

When asked whether Russia was the only one of the four that could be considered stable, Medvedev said, "You can answer that question yourself."

Of course we can, but Russia wants to answer it for us. Russia has the resources, but not the money. So the other question is, who has the money and the need for resources?

The biggest answer to that is China. China wants legitimacy as a diplomatic and capitalistic power. They have their hands in investments all over the world, places like Africa, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia & Iran.

If China can pump enough money into countries that are desperate for investment, then China can count on them to take their side in global diplomatic arguments. Perhaps it seems that countries like Sudan and Zambia are not important political allies, but what about Venezuela and Iran? These countries need neither more money, nor more strength in their anti-US positions. Russia may seem weak, but a government run by a group of former KGB spies is not the government I want controlling Europe behind the scenes.

There isn't a petition or a protest that we can start to stop these machinations. All we can do is be aware and hope that policy makers know that we may be able to trust our allies only as long as they can afford it.

Posted by Abigail at 02:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 20, 2005

Consumer Confidence and Katrina?

As another large hurricane grows in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening American oil production once again, perhaps it's a good a time as any to talk about how Katrina has affected the American economy - or more so, how some people think Katrina has affected it.

Last week there was talk that consumer sentiment is slumping because of Hurricane Katrina and now the Fed raises interest rates. But what does this talk about consumer sentiment really mean and is it even valid? Reading about why the Fed is raising rates, it's good to know there isn't much talk about "consume sentiment" which is good, cause I think it's bunk. I'll grant that the economy is in shock, just like many people are in shock. I'll even grant that less people have been shopping in the last few weeks - or rather, that they are spending less money on those trips. But, is the reason for these tighter purse strings necessarily worry over the economy?

Could it be that they are saving money to donate it to the relief work?

Could people have been home watching the 24/7 news coverage instead of shopping?

Could they be spending their time volunteering instead of shopping?

Or...I wonder if this economic analysis of the economy takes into account the fact that one of the major cities in the US is no longer spending any money. But ok, I'll assume they considered that.

The result was similar to trends in other consumer surveys as well as a string of major polls showing waning support for the Bush administration's economic policies.

"I think there's probably also a degree of loss of confidence in the government," said David Sloan, economist at 4CAST Ltd. in New York.

Loss of confidence in government? I don't know, I appreciate the Mr. Sloan is crediting the average American shopper with such complex thought processes. As Jim chronicled yesterday, some American shoppers are just tired of thinking about Katrina, so it's not stopping them from hanging out at the mall or anything.

For me personally, I know I've been spending less money in the stores, both because I am unemployed (which I was before Katrina) and because I wanted to be able to contribute to organizations like the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. I also look at a lot of things differently now. For example, the way I treat water is different. I'm not so quick to dump out fresh water just because it sat on the counter for a while. It's true that I'm being more efficient about my driving since the gas prices went so high. But they've dropped over 50 cents in my area and I'm still being efficient...because really, I should have been all along right? So often in times of crisis we are awoken to things about our behavior that should have been changed long ago. Perhaps those of us whose actions are changing because of Katrina are only benefiting from better focus and awareness - not because we are so worried about the economy or because we trust the government any more or less than we did before - or more or less than we should have in the first place.

Posted by Abigail at 06:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2005

And Justice For All

I happened to catch some of CourtTV this afternoon when they were showing a clip of Chai Vang testifying. His description of the way he took out his gun to shoot Jessica Willers, one of many he killed that day, was amazingly matter of fact. He explained that the hunters were attacking him with racial slurs and didn't seem to understand that racial slur isn't something worthy of lethal self defense. Thankfully, the jury agreed.

Hmong Man Found Guilty in Hunter Deaths

Additionally, the article cites someone playing the race card:

Outside court, one of Vang's friends questioned the all-white jury's makeup and maintained Vang was innocent.

"All Caucasian, all American. Why can't there be one Hmong? Why can't there be one minority in there?" Pofwmyeh Yang said. "I believe only one person can judge, and that's God. But God didn't judge today."

Now, admittedly I'm Caucasian, but looking at the case, if I weren't white I would be somewhat offended at this implication that non-whites should be on a jury to secure freedom for a murderer. And "All Americans"? Yes, they have to all be Americans in order to be on a jury, right?

Additionally, as a Christian I agree that God is the final judge of us all, but in a civilized society we must have laws and the breaking of those laws must have consequences. That is what we saw today.

Posted by Abigail at 08:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

September 03, 2005

The Role of the President

Hurricane Katrina has brought back to our minds an important question: What exactly is the job of the President in the middle of a national catastrophe?

During 9/11, the President was an encourager and a symbol of the strength of America - of a strong response and a strong spirit.

However, what was his practical role? I don't know that I could, off the top of my head, quantify what exactly the President did to relieve the crisis at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. I'm sure there was a lot of delegation but if it had gone horribly, it would have been on his head. As it worked out, it was a high-moment of his presidency. It must be said though, that part of that high moment came from the fact that we as a nation were banded together against a common enemy - we don't have that now. There is no "evil" against which to direct our anger and frustration and since I would guess that the people in New Orleans (and many people nationwide, for that matter) don't know the name "Mike Brown" or "Lt. Gen. Honore" or maybe even "Gov. Blanco," the President takes the fall.

And, for the most part, he should be held responsible and I would guess that he would not shirk that responsibility. However, the President (and all American citizens) must be able to depend on our individual states' first responders. We cannot count on the federal government for the easement of all our pain and suffering. All states must consider their disaster relief plans on an individual basis. Though I would say it may indeed be the President's job to urge the states to do so.

So, I think Mark was on the right track earlier - unfortunate as it may be for the President. This Rich Lowry article runs along the same lines:

Law enforcement, of course, is primarily a state and local responsibility, but in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, people look to the federal government and the president to solve any problem on their TV screens. Already the question is being asked if the feds could have jumped in sooner (the National Guard is now arriving in force).

But...could there be other things to consider? As pertains to the pre-hurricane preparation, Powerline reports thatthe answer is yes:

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

So, for all the criticism about the President's preparedness efforts he did at least two things: asking for mandatory evacuation of New Orleans and declaring diaster areas ahead of time. The first stressed the seriousness of the storm to those who otherwise may have tried to ride it out. The second allowed the process of calling up troops and allocating funds to begin earlier than it would have.

The President has saved lives. Himself. I of course don't know who actually is to blame for the fact that all that has not gone as well as it should. I know the President will deservedly take some of the blame. But I also know that he himself acted in such a way as to save thousands of lives and alleviate the current crisis in New Orleans.

Posted by Abigail at 05:25 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

September 01, 2005

Al Sharpton is out of Control

He was just bloviating on Countdown on MSNBC - big time. He says things like "We can rebuild Iraq but we can't get food and water into New Orleans." and "We're acting like it's hundreds of thousands of people."

Ahhh! No, it's not that many, but it not an easy ride in or out. Think about the situation, please. Consider what you are saying, Mr. Sharpton, and how atrocious it sounds.

He said things about "right wing rising up around" other things, but not doing anything now. That if it wasn't New Orleans but if it was somewhere "near Crawford, FEMA would have gotten there a lot quicker."
All of this is insulting to how hard the Coast Guard, the New Orleans' police, the National Guard have been working there. I know it has been difficult and things haven't gone perfectly at all, but people are working so hard we cannot even imagine.

And so...Sharpton's reaction? Unbelievable.

And then Olberman closes it all up by thanking Sharpton for his "insight."
So...does insight now mean "political hay-making"?

UPDATE: As a response to Rev. Sharpton, here are Radioblogger's words to Jack Cafferty's earlier today after Cafferty lost his mind on CNN:

All righty then. You feel better now, Jack? You creep. While you are complaining about how inactive the government's been, The Coast Guard has saved hundreds of people. While you think Bush is a day late and a dollar short, the federal government was mobilizing before the storm ever hit. Disaster areas were declared before the storm ever got there.

If you think Bush landing in New Orleans the day after is a good idea, you simply are a buffoon. That's right. Resources are already stretched to over-capacity, and let's plan security and logistics for a presidential vist while people are stranded. That's a real good idea, Jack.

If you want to have had troops on site as the storm hit, so they'd be ready to immediately respond, you'd have dead troops now as well.

I don't care a whit if the whole world is watching. I'd rather the whole world chipped in and helped, like we've done for them every time something bad happened in their neck of the woods.

By the way, Jack? How have you pitched in to help? How much encouragement are you providing to the people that are actually on the ground making a difference right now? You are saying their effort is bungled, badly managed, and a world-wide disgrace and an embarrassment. Very nice, Jack. If you want to see an example of a world-wide disgrace and an embarrassment, look in the mirror.

Don't be a Jack, America. Don't be part of the kick-em-while-they're-down crowd. Make a difference.

Yes, Make a difference. Give.

Posted by Abigail at 08:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 23, 2005

Don't you just love to vote?

Especially when you don't have to drive anywhere or walk past people trying to hand you nail files and magnets with local candidates names on them? :)

Anyway, Patrick Ruffini is running a political straw poll and trying to use it to get a statistically valid* sample. You can view the results (even without voting)by state, region or blog, by red or blue. It could have quite the value, as Hugh Hewitt said:

If the blogs can generate reliable results through professionals like Ruffini, the end-run around MSM and its biased poll taking is complete.

And really, who doesn't want to complete an end-run around the MSM?

Speaking of football - or really...speaking of not speaking of it, Hugh also had this to say:

There's an alarming amount of Eagles blogging going on at Galley Slaves. Don't they realize that the Tribe is now tied for the wild card spot in the American League, rendering all football blogging premature?

That's right. The Tribe! Oh....yeah... :)

And the article Hugh links to there has the following headings:

:)

UPDATE: In deference to Rick Brady's vastly superior knowledge and experience in the field of statistics and polling, I changed "significant" to "valid" in my writing above.
Thanks again Rick :)

Posted by Abigail at 01:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 22, 2005

Box 44: Pro Bono (2)

ProBono, seems like a simple thing, but I would rather call it:
For Sale: White House
It's my last Adopt a box assignment. I enjoyed this whole process though, but I must say if anyone else reads through these boxes and finds sometimes I missed, please email me or leave a comment. I would really appreciate it.

This last box has both interesting cases and nice perspectives on John Roberts. However, this mostly all took place in 1984, and with reelection looming, I'm guessing it influenced the docket though. But it didn't influence John Roberts. He presents the best legal argument in each case. Even in a case that may be politically helpful for the President, Roberts seems to agree only after the legal concerns are addressed. He's also concerned not just for technicalities of law but about things that may appear illegal even if they are not. And sometimes, he agrees that the best thing to do is not say anything - especially when someone threatens to put a lien against the sale of the White House.

But if you are interested in some more detail, then just keep reading...

1. New York County Lawyers Association
Memo from Roberts to Fred Fielding - 1/25/84 (p.3)
Roberts simply described a letter to the President regarding a report from the Assoc. on HR 4043. Apparently the bill was proposed to be amended by the House Committee on Science & Technology and the Association wanted to recommend additional proposals for the bill.

The bill was the Administration's "proposal to encourage joint research by reducing risk of anti-trust liability and eliminating the threat of treble damages for such ventures."
The Association agreed with the bill and was now reiterating its agreement in a report, to help promote risky and expensive research in areas vital to the national interest. Roberts wants to send a letter thanking the association for its report and advised to have it sent to justice and commerce.

There are some more memos and letters sending the same thanks and information back and forth.
Then there is the Association's letter to the President (p.8) with the attached report (pp 9- 17). But, what exactly is a risky, expensive kind of venture? The report says that with competitive research and under existing law research on such things as a better ball point pen or plastic coffee cup would proceed quite well, but that encouragement - through anti-trust and other means - is needed for such research as "space industrialization," "desalting of seawater" and "non-polluting power sources."
Ethanol anyone?

The report then goes on to recommend various specifics to the bill. Basically they want the President to define such ventures that would benefit from joint research so that the R&D community would know that they may proceed with said research. The dear was apparently that if the research firms felt that there was a chance that existing legislation would shut down their work they wouldn't even look into it or start spending the money. This recommendations therefore, were in the name of more and more research, with specific federal backing. However, I do appreciate the fact that they expect the President to consult with the technology industry, the scientific community and relevant government agencies before deciding which research goals would fall under the new guidelines.

It goes on and on and on, cause really - it wasn't written by one lawyer, but rather an entire association of them. They do quote Winston Churchill though (p.11), with which one can rarely go wrong.

They also nicely summarized (and underlined) their conclusions on p.17. I won't restate them here because...I've stated them already.

2. Farmland Industries
Memo from Roberts to Fred Fielding - 2/6/84
Someone wants their opinions on a draft letter from President Reagan to Farmland Industries ("FI"). Apparently the president of FI wrote Reagan, urging him to support "expansion of the Commodity Credit Corporation credit guarantee program" on behalf of " '500,000 farm families' ".

Wow. Could this relate to ethanol and corn in Iowa in some way too? It is 1984 after all.

Roberts closes his memo having no objection to the letter and since it is written to the president and not the company itself, there is no endorsement of FI to be considered. However, as cited in a memo dated 2/1/84 - they all had good reason to believe that this letter from the President would be printed in the FI newsletter and sent to all 500,000 letters.

Like I said. Election year, 1984. But who can blame them for talking about it amongst themselves.

The draft (pp.23-25) is written in true Ronald Reagan style, which means it is nice to read - even with all the agriculture talk. :)

Pages 26-27 display FI's original letter and the resolution agreed upon by its members.

3. Go America, Inc. (pp.28-32)
Group of documents concerning an offer from the president of this private company wanted to allow the President to use the Go America symbol throughout government and industry. Roberts memo to Fred Fielding on 2/6/84 (p.28) says accepting such an offer would be inappropriate since Go America is not a 501(c)(3) [non-profit] organization. Therefore, the President's use of the symbol would be his endorsement of the marketing of a private company.

Fielding agrees and passes that along to the Special Assistant to the President (p.29) and then we can read the Go America letter itself (pp.31-32).

Roberts was right about this one and the Democrats certainly can't accuse him of asking the President to help a "greedy corporation."

4. A Lien against the White House? (pp.33-47)
This is really bizarre and I don't even know that I understand it, but apparently Earl C. Berger believed that the administration had failed to pay some damages due because of some litigation and on August 22, 1983 Berger wrote the following to Craig Fuller

I am preparing litigation looking forward to executing and selling the White House of our President, because the Order for Remand has not been properly honored or carried out.
But I am not averse to compromise, and payments due to the teachers and to myself, as their attorney.

He's "looking forward" to selling the White House? Is he serious with this?

Apparently he was because the next letter was to Fred Fielding saying:

Letters to Mr. Fuller go unacknowledged or acted on. He ought to advise Mr. Reagan that his forthcoming campagin (sic) by functionaires, but can be avoided simply

Lastly, an unsigned letter to Mr. Futrell, president of the NEA, that contains many random spelling errors as well as the history of this grievance (p.47). Be prepared though, the scanning is particularly sketchy here.

So what happened? I don't have much of a clue except that some teachers paid some fees and then lost them and then, you know, decided that the best thing to do was to sell the White House. Good plan, that.

The catch for someone looking for one in all this insanity: The 1974 case "spawned litigation involving substantial attorneys fees in which I had some involvement at Hogan and Hartson. I suggest, therefore, that this matter be reassigned to someone else on the staff" (p.35).

However that Hogan & Hartson attorney here is not Roberts but rather one David Waller. This was years before Roberts would be with H&H. So could someone make a connection there? Maybe, if they wanted it.

But I'm still wondering, did anyone manage to sell the White House?

That's it. End of Box.

Posted by Abigail at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Box 35: Piracy on the High Seas

..aka...Box 35:Pardons
:)

I continue my Judge John Roberts Adopt a Box O'Docs assignment.

Again, nothing in this box to hurt Roberts. There's barely anything here written by Roberts himself - and what is there shows him to be cordial, helpful and adherent to protocol.

So, why write so much about this box? I was sucked in by all the talk of the "High Seas" ...

First subject in question of the Pardon: Ramiro De La Fe (who should really be known as Ramiro De La Fe et. al because there is a large group of defendants involved in the indictment, but apparently the pardon is only for De La Fe).

His warrant for arrest, dated July 26, 1967, is from Miami, Florida and requires Mr. De La Fe to "answer to an indictment charging him in conspiracy to commit piracy on the high seas; assault with a dangerous weapon; destruction of navigation appliances; unlawful boarding of a vessel on the high seas; in violation of Title 18, United States Code...."

Okay, first - piracy??
Second, "High Seas"? Is this some sort of technical nautical term?
Third, "Navigation appliances?" Appliances? So, something more than like a compass I guess?
Fourth, "High Seas"
And...fifth ...Piracy? Seriously?
We really need to get another name for that offense.

The indictment describes the conspirators plan to "commandeer a vessel" and take it to Cuba. Yes. Cuba. In 1967. Which makes it seem like a bigger offense. They planned to dismantle the radio (aka navigational appliance). In fact, they did indeed take the vessel using "dangerous weapons, that is, guns, with intent to do bodily harm" (p.15).
Finally, on that same page, "high seas" are defined here to mean "The Atlantic Ocean."

The Indictment doesn't indicate that De La Fe et. al. made it to Cuba, but they did get the vessel, using guns, take it to Florida and then take it away to the ocean again, at which points, one assumes, they were caught.

Now, that was 1967. All letters and memos included in this box are dated throughout 1983/1984.

Why 1983? Well, as a memo from David Stephenson, Acting Pardon Attorney to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President explains -

On May 5, 1983 President Reagan approved a revision of the rules governing petitions for pardon and other forms of Executive clemency, the first revision since 1962.

So, new rules, that's why.

The memo explains the benefits of the new rules and then attaches the rules themselves, an obvious official description from the DOJ.

Anyway, most of the memos about this case written by Roberts himself that would have been in this box were restricted for reason "B6: Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Next case: fast forward to Nov.15, 1984 - A Roberts Letter on White House Stationary to "Mr. Goldsmith." (p.20)
Roberts says Goldsmith's letter was referred to him by Chief of Staff, James Baker. Apparently, Goldsmith was mad because he helped the US Attorney's Office and wasn't set free from custody afterward. He also said he had a pending pardon request. Roberts asks that Goldsmith understand the protocol matters here, saying that "it would be inappropriate for the White House to interfere in any way with the decision of the Parole Commission, or to interfere with the processing of your application before the Acting Pardon Attorney."

I think it was quite kind of Roberts to let Goldsmith know what was going on, not only that, but Roberts goes on to say that he referred Goldsmith's letter to the DOJ.

Next Memo from Roberts to Roger Clegg - Assoc. Deputy Attorney General. (p.21)
Roberts forwarded letters from an inmate as well as his own reply to Clegg.
However, those other documents are not in the box. Just the memo.

Then there's a White House tracking sheet re: Goldsmith and then another restriction form with reason B6 cited again.

Finally, a letter dated 10/1/84 on Congress of the United States letterhead to the Parole Commission on behalf of Goldsmith from Peter W. Rodino. (p. 24-25)

Rodino (D-NJ) admits to not knowing Goldsmith personally, but here again is the mention of Goldsmith's cooperation, specifically with the DEA. For this, he should be freed apparently. Rodino's logic "One must conclude that Mr. Goldsmith's experience was at least equivalent to and far more severe than any incarceration could have been."

Huh?

Personally, I think Congress should have followed Roberts' lead and stayed out of it. Roberts was correct to cite such protocol in matters of pardons. They are sensitive subjects and are best handled in the most careful way, without concern for congressional politics. And what was Goldsmith doing writing to a New Jersey Congressman? Did he send letters to all of Congress? Talk about a fishing expedition.

Last two papers in the box are restriction documents on parole hearings and testimonies citing both B6 and "B7: Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes" and also "C: Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift."

So as I said, nothing here to hurt Roberts. But could we hear about the "High Seas" one more time, please?? :)

Posted by Abigail at 07:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 20, 2005

The Iran Emergency in Box 29

I volunteered to Adopt a Box O Docs - Documents released by the Reagan Library concerning John Roberts' years in the White House Counsel's office. The program is organized by Hugh Hewitt & Generalissimo Duane.

My Assignment: Box 29 - Iran Emergency

Bottom Line: There's really nothing here that can hurt Roberts. He penned a few memos that basically passed along White House Counsel's legal OK on a report to Congress and an accompanying notice. If the Left accuses Roberts of not caring about commas, underlining, or basic math, then we can counter with these memos, otherwise there's not much to say.

The documents as a whole are interesting nonetheless, and so here is my full report:
The main document in this box is titled "National Emergency With Respect to Iran" or also "The Semi-Annual Report to Congress on Iran Emergency."

The report is included 3 different times, first on what looks like internal White House stationary (p.7-11), second in two-column format with the header "Administration of Ronald Reagan 1985/Apr 22" (p.12-14) and third on paper with the headline "THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary" (p.21-24).
Preceding the report is a notice, extending the state of emergency with Iran.

There are two memos to the President from Secretary of the Treasury James Baker. The first (p.6) advises the President that he must make this report to congress. The second (p.18) advises him that he must publish the notice in the Federal Register in order to be sure that the Nov 14, 1979 "declaration of national emergency with respect to Iran" not be allowed to expire on Nov 14, 1985. Sec Baker warns:

If the Iran emergency were allowed to lapse, the Government would be limited to existing measures regarding Iran. This could prevent you from taking steps necessary to implement the January 1981 agreements with Iran, from effectuating new settlements with Iran, or from protecting the interests of U.S. nationals with claims against Iran. It could also impair the Government's position in litigation involving Iran.

Who knew that seemingly insignificant small pieces of paper like a "notice" could be so important in the Government's foreign policy. I guess I just wonder whether James Baker was really concerned about the lapse or whether his memo was a matter of protocol.

The report itself discusses the trials going on at the tribunal and the various ways claims were decided one way or another. There were claims by individuals and organizations and various Government departments were also involved including Justice, Treasury and State concerning the Algiers Accords.

Either way, the report came from the White House and was given the Ok by Roberts and the Counsel's office, not the other way around.

Roberts himself wrote three memos for Staff Secretary David Chew.

1. November 12, 1985 (p.2) Roberts relays information from Treasury and State about stats in the report concerning the number of claimants and confirms a proposed change in language - moving from the date the Congress passed a bill (July 31) to the date the President signed it (Aug 16). These corrections were made by the final version of the report in this box on pages 21-24.

2. November 6, 1985 (p.3) This memo was obviously written first. It confirms Counsel's review of the report and request some changes. One involved a total number of small claimants. This change was not reflected in any version of the report. The other was the above stated change regarding the dates on the bill. Roberts states that the "legally significant date is the date the President signed the bill into law."

3. October 30, 1985 (p.15) This earliest memo concerns the notice of extending the Iran Emergency. Roberts stated that Counsel found "no objection from a legal perspective" but proposes some changes to punctuation "[s]oley in the interests of stylistic conformity with last year's notice." It's all about the commas and the underlining.

The final version of the report was released on November 13, 1985.

Posted by Abigail at 02:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 08, 2005

In Focus: Soldiers' Angels

If you've read blogs lately, listened to Hugh Hewitt or...well...done a lot of other things - you've probably heard about Soldiers' Angels.

Maybe you've even adopted a Soldier. If so, way to go!! :) But I know that I used to thing that adopting a soldier and sending him or her packages and letters was the only think I could do with this great organization - besides giving them money that is :)

Of course, adopting a soldier is always an option, and a great one. They give you the soldier's address and sometimes email and so you can communicate in a lot of ways.

But there are many other opportunities...

If you don't want to commit to a single soldier or can't afford the cost of sending packages, you can join the Soldiers' Angels Letter Writing Team. With the LWT, you pick a day on which you wish to receive a name - or two days (mine are Monday and Thursday) and each week on your chosen day(s), they send you the name and address of a soldier, and maybe something about them, and you send a card or letter.
In their words:
"Just once! No long term commitment, unless you find a
friend!!! If you are interested in joining the Letter Writing Team,
please contact Linda at lindom@gmail.com."

This is a great program because even without sending packages, mail call is such an important time for the military, getting a surprise note of support from back home is such an encouragement - and sometimes, they write you back!! :)

Now, if you don't want to send mail and buy stamps, but obviously have email (you're reading this right?) you can join the "E-Squad - Email Support Team"
It's easy. You write to SA, tell them you want to join, they write you back with an email address and you start emailing. No cost and not much time commitment. You can write the emails while you are waiting for the Stones Cry Out page to load...and perhaps, refresh :)
For more information, email Mel at melsfaves2000@hotmail.com.

Here are some other opportunities, as described by Soldiers' Angels themselves:

Adopt Another Soldier
Whether your soldier is still fighting for our freedoms or has already come home, we need angels to volunteer to adopt another soldier! It is heartbreaking to hear stories of soldiers who never get to hear their name called at mail call. We need to make sure that this doesn't happen!!! Countless soldiers have told us the joy they felt when their name was called at mail call, and then to find that someone they
didn't even know had taken it upon themselves to adopt them and provide support to them. Some have cried. If you can adopt a new soldier today, email us at 2ndAdoptions@gmail.com.

Wounded TLC Team
Have a special place in your heart for our heroes who have been wounded in the line of duty? The Wounded TLC Team is exactly what you have been looking for. These brave men and women have sacrificed so much and could use some real encouragement! If you have a heart for these soldiers, please contact Elaine at bakerdzen@earthlink.net.

And still more teams available which you can find out about by visiting the message boards.
~~

For any other Soldiers' Angles questions you can email them directly at SAMembership@gmail.com. They are great about giving whatever information you need. They are there to help you help the Military :)

Really, I can't stress enough how a simple letter can make a difference. Last week I got the name of a soldier in a remote area of Afghanistan, many of the troops serving with him don't get any mail and they are asking for simple things like socks, batteries and letters. So I'll be sending him an envelope full of cards addressed to "any soldier" so that he can hand them out to the people in need. If you have extra stationary and note cards lying around, this is an awesome use of those resources :)

Please consider these opportunities to say Thank you to the soldiers. They will be so thankful to you :)

Posted by Abigail at 10:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 06, 2005

The Israeli Terrorist

On Thursday, a deserter from the Israeli army opened fire on a bus in Galilee, and killed 4 Israeli Arabs (including the bus driver). Then the people on the bus and a crowd from the outside (because the bus was stopped) surrounded the gunman and began to beat him with stones. The mob was over 200 strong and the gunman was killed.

There are many issues here, the first being how this is covered in the press, since it was an Israeli gunman fighting for Israeli rights. Here are some quotes from the Boston Globe:

The attack was one of the deadliest by an Israeli on Palestinian civilians in years, and it followed predictions by security services that some opponents of the Gaza withdrawal would take extreme measures to prevent it as the Aug. 17 starting date approaches. In particular, Israeli authorities have said, opponents might launch attacks on Palestinians to draw reprisals against Israelis and reignite fighting between the two sides -- perhaps forcing the government to reconsider the plan.

I don't know, but I don't think that Palestinians need an excuse to blow up Israelis. Let me be clear that I think this man was wrong to open fire on this bus and I have no sympathy for him. But the Globe seems to be showing more sympathy for Palestinians as victims in this one paragraph than the press as a whole has ever shown to Israeli victims.

However, they are kind enough to include this quote:

Many settlers and their supporters plan to resist soldiers and police officers sent to remove residents. But leaders of the main settlement movement have vowed not to resort to violence.

"Such incidents cannot be part of the democratic struggle in Israel," a settler leader, Bentsi Lieberman, said to reporters near the Gaza Strip, where thousands have protested in recent days.

It's clear that Israelis understand they can't resort to violence in their protests - terrorist style violence anyway. I would like to see some recognition of the fact that Israelis themselves are stepping up to say that what this Israeli gunman did was wrong. Why is this so hard for Arabs to understand?

Here is Prime Minister Sharon's statement, condemning the attack. It's good to know that Sharon condemns all terrorist attacks, even the Israeli ones. As James Taranto said yesterday:

In the typical terrorist attack by Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian officials, if they criticize it at all, do so only on the ground that it's counterproductive, and the parents usually hail their child's "martyrdom." So, while Jewish terrorists are every bit as despicable as Arab ones, Israel's response to this atrocity shows that Jewish civilization is vastly superior to its Arab counterpart.

I agree. Jewish civilization is superior to Arab civilization. It's more respectable to not honor terrorists or superficially condemn them just because they share your race. However, what sort of "civility" do we see in Israel if a crazy mob comes and kills someone like that? I understand that the Israeli people live in constant threat of a bus bomber, that they have for years and that they've pretty much had it with terrorists in their country. They started fighting this war against terror years before September 11. But does all of this necessitate the crazy mob mentality?
I mean, even if, right after 9/11, a similar thing had happened on a New York bus, right near Ground Zero, would we see this kind of mob? Would we see Americans beating a gunman to death, rather than restraining him, dipping their hands in his blood rather than calling the police?

It's a whole different culture in the Middle East. I heard someone say on the news the other day (Oh, maybe it was Rich Lowry) that Muslims in India don't have the same culture of hate for Jews and other non-Muslims, that there is something particular to the Arab world that makes the interpretation of the Koran more deadly.

It's different in the Middle East. More different than I think we've been willing to admit in our desire for peace and unity. The Israeli government may indeed be more civil and responsible than its Arab counterpart when it comes to condemning terror in all forms. However, what passes as civil and humane among the citizens themselves is far different from what we would imagine here in America.

Of course we wouldn't dance in the streets over another country's tragedy either.

Posted by Abigail at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 05, 2005

Rich Review: Lowry at YAF

This afternoon, for whatever reason, I stopped the DVD I was watching and flipped the channels...delighted to discover National Review's Rich Lowry on CSPAN speaking at the Young America's Foundation Conservative Student Conference.

While I missed his actual speech, I saw much of the question and answer, and it was so good - I took notes! So if you weren't blessed enough to be at the conference and you weren't one of the other 6 CSPAN viewers, here are some high points you missed: (And they aren't in chronological order, in case you are checking up on me:)

1. "Real" Journalism
A student asked about the fact that many who work for National Review had other jobs before becoming journalists and what advice Lowry had for those that wanted to be journalists later in life. After humorously confessing to being a journalism geek (while in high school he video-taped Fireline and played it back until he was sure he had all the arguments correct) he came down on the "elite/mainstream" media for saying that you have to go to journalism school in order to be a "real" journalist. He said that journalism school is often a waste of time and that people hoping to write should read as much as they can and write as much as they can and that
journalism is basically calling people on the phone and getting them to tell you things and then summarizing it.
Ha! I wonder if Mr. Rather would stoop to that kind of description :)

2. The Rise of China
Lowry - It's dangerous when a rising power cannot discern its true national interest
He said that this phenomenon occurred in Germany, pre-World War I when it alienated the rest of Europe for no apparent reason. He expressed concern that China would make a similar mistake.
He may be onto something, because really...has China seemed to exhibit any kind of clear strategy? They maintain this crazy big brother communist grip on their country by monitoring phone calls, letters and emails - but at the same time exalt business growth and other capitalist principles.

However, perhaps it would be worse if China did have some sort of master plan to take over the world - assuming of course that it was better than what Pinky and the Brain would try to implement on a weekly basis.

3. It's just too crazy in North Korea
In the course of answering a question about what to do about the "Axis of Evil" Lowry said:
How much pressure can you put on a guy who's happy to have his people starve and eat grass?
Yeah...good point. I mean, it's already horrible for people in that country and obviously Kim Jong Il doesn't care too much about his country, except for the areas that contain nukes. However, Lowry adds:
China can put pressure on them, but they won't...Perhaps we should say to China "You seem happy with proliferation in the region, so maybe Japan needs nukes too."
This is another good point about China. If they think Kim is too crazy to use the nukes he loves, they might not care how many he makes or tests or whatever. But if they knew that nearby countries with non-crazy leaders had nuclear capabilities they may feel differently about the whole things, especially if those countries decided to side with Taiwan.

4. The Ubiquitous Border Question
I've been meaning to write about this for some time as the Ranger and I have had some discussions about it - and today Rich made my point in just a few sentences:
It's hard to shut down the border as a border because it's just too large. You could stengthen it in certain points but then of course you have the problem of immigrants going to other areas. The key is internal enforcement
YES! Exactly. He went on to describe how we have to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and refuse to give them driver's licenses. He said we have to basically say "If you broke our laws to come into this country, we don't want you here. Go home."
That sounds right and he admits it will be "very painful" but it's a lot easier and more cost efficient (not to mention feasible) than covering every foot of the border. People are contributing to law breaking inside the country and we already have agencies set up to handle this, let's handle it. If immigrants know that we are cracking down, I don't think they will be as eager to come.
Most important, Lowry added, is that these steps need to be taken before any temporary guest worker program can be put in place.

5. Intelligence Reform?
Will it happen? Can it happen? Lowry contends that the most recent changes are simply like "moving boxes" and not real reform. Unfortunately, he doesn't hold out hope for real reform. He sites some intelligence failures about what it was like on the ground in Iraq - how the electricity was barely working and that if we had a CIA agent simply walk down the street they would have known that.

Mostly though he says that what we need are people who are willing to go into the tough places, blend into the landscape - learning the language and the culture. That real reform means that:

We need people willing to deal with tough, nasty people and ready to do tough, nasty things without, if something goes wrong, being called in front of a congressional committee.

This is so absolutely true. There is very little that can substitute for on the ground human intelligence and if our military and CIA have to worry about reports and questions when working in places like Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China - they won't be able to do the work that needs to be done.

~~

That's the round up. It was quite good, so if you are flipping the channels and happen upon Rich Lowry on CSPAN, stop a minute and see what there is to learn :)

Posted by Abigail at 11:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2005

It's more than just science

Usually I agree with Charles Krauthammer, but tonight on Special Report w/Brit Hume, he said some things that gave me pause. The discussion among the All-stars for the second segment was about the teaching of Evolution/Intelligent Design. Now while it's true that I may disagree with Krauthammer's position about this, but that's not what I want to discuss here.

First Krauthammer said that "Evolution is the foundation" of all areas of science
"take it away and you have nothing left."

While I could grant that evolution has stimulated a lot of biological discoveries and research, we could still talk about all those results without demanding that evolution is true. Without evolution, we could still talk about mitosis. We could still study the genus and species (not to mention the phylum) of all sorts of animals and insects. Science education and scientific research wouldn't stop without evolution. The same way astronomy didn't end when we realized the cosmos didn't revolve around the earth

So, if it ever happens that we consider not teaching evolution, don't worry about the rest of science disappearing. It will all still be there.

Second, after Bill Sammon said that Red Staters would come to the polls if there was an initiative to teach intelligent design in schools, Krauthammer said "Science is not determined at the polling place."

He's right, Science is not determined at the polling place, but educational guidelines about school science classes are determined at the polling places in the sense that they are determined by state wide school boards, which are responsible to the electorate in some way.

If the Ohio school board wanted to require science teachers to teach Scientology as scientific fact, they have to know that Ohio parents would stage some kind of revolt. Whether that is protests or moving kids to private schools, or most extreme, moving kids to another state - there would be repercussions. The knowledge of that fact is what keeps school guidelines from being as liberal as they would probably like them to be.

Posted by Abigail at 08:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

Two weeks later: Continue to pray for London

I was getting ready this morning and first heard reports of smoke in a train station around 830 eastern time...and now there are at least 4 incidents reported.

3 London Underground Stations evactuated.

British police say 'incident' on bus in east London

Explosions reported on London Tube

Interesting information so far is that there may have been bombs that detonated but didn't explode. This would make them easier to track and greatly aid in the investigation. Hopefully this is the case.

Posted by Abigail at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

Another Promise Kept

I certainly share Rick's enthusiam about the nomination of John Roberts. Great choice :)

As I've said before, any political pressure to choose a non-european or a woman was false. The best person should be the one for the job. By all accounts, John Roberts is the most qualified, intelligent, gracious and conservative choice. And...you know, he's 50 years old. So, I applaud President Bush for rising above speculation that he would bow any any of these pressures. Back during the '04 election, there was a large emphasis on the possibility that the President would be able to make a nomination to the court and that we had to give that the consideration it deserved in casting our vote. With this nomination President Bush has stood up for one of the main reasons he was re-elected.

I admit to not know much about John Roberts. But I also admit to having a weakness for the opinions of Bill Kristol. And Bill Kristol? He liked the choice and agreed that Roberts is extremely well suited for the position.

I also have respect for Hugh Hewitt's input and tonight he says this is a "home run."

I respect also Kathryn Jean Lopez who said to Hugh on his show "It's a great night."

I'm sure there will be many more bloggers, both here at SCO and all around who are giving their opinions and giving a round up of everyone else's opinion and that is great. We should continue the buzz about this because it is a definite win for the Bush Administration.

Oh, did we mention that John G. Roberts is 50 years old?

Posted by Abigail at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

But what about Mr. Wilson?

For a few days now I've been working looking into information regarding Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. My contention, in a comment to this post, was that this Plame-Leak controversy was obscuring the fact that Wilson lied on multiple occasions about the circumstances surrounding his trip to Niger to investigate Uranium sales deals with Iraq. He lied in his op-ed about what happened there and he lied to others - saying his CIA wife did not secure him the Niger mission.

Another commenter, dem, said that he never heard that Wilson had been discredited. I believe that to be possible due to the low level of MSM coverage of this story.

So, there are summaries of these facts in articles in National Review here and here as well as OpinionJournal.com.

Or, if you prefer, you can read primary source documents: the
Butler Report (from British Intelligence) and the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Interestingly enough, on Monday night's Special Report w/Brit Hume, All-star panelist, Fred Barnes, said, "Of course Wilson's whole story has been totally discredited now." He said it so off-handedly as to suggest that it was common knowledge.

Well, apparently it's not, but it should be.

Posted by Abigail at 12:56 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

July 08, 2005

What is the point again?

John Nichols of The Nation was Ron Reagan's phone-a-friend after Ron was unable to hold his own against John Fund and Christopher Hitchens on MSNBC a few minutes ago. Mr. Nichols was unwilling to concede that Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist regime. When pushed on this point, he replied that he would rely on the "commission's report" which had the benefit of containing statements from the President and Vice President, he said.

Well, okay. Hitchens rightly pointed out that on any ordinary day Mr. Nichols wouldn't really care what Pres. Bush and VP Cheney had to say about anything. Moreover, if we can agree to assume that Nichols is talking about the 9/11 Commission Report, then he is implying that saying Iraq was a Terrorist regime presupposes that it was involved in 9/11.

I'm willing to say that Iraq wasn't directly involved in 9/11. What I cannot let go of is the fact that Iraq was indeed a terrorist regime.

Saddam's fingerprints (in the form of pay checks) are all over suicide bombings in the middle east, some of which have killed Americans in the past. Additionally, I would say that I don't think we should have had to wait for 9/11 to fight the war on terror. We should have been fighting it during the time of all the other terror attacks on Americans, here and abroad - [USS Cole, Beirut, the first attack on the Twin Towers - for those who forget]. I am not willing to say that Iraq cannot be connected to any of those attacks.

The war on terror is about fighting against terrorism. It sounds redundant to even define it that way, but I say it as such to try a distinction between a "war on terror" and a "war-against-only-those-exact-people-who-happened-to-attack-us-on-9/11"

Two. Different. Things.

We are fighting a War on Terror for our protection and the protection of freedom and free peoples around the world. We are not fighting this war as a knee-jerk reaction or revenge for the deaths on 9/11. It is a bigger goal with a wider scope and a far more important purpose.

Posted by Abigail at 05:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 07, 2005

London Calling

About 8 years ago I was in London on a trip. A few days before we left there was a Tube strike and at midnight one night, while I was riding on the Underground, the strike went into effect and all riders were shuttled off the train at the next available station. The streets were crowded and we were left to find our way back to Oxford street. We ended up back tracking a few times - but the whole experience became an amusing anecdote.

Not so today in London.

I can only imagine the number of people that fled out of the stations this morning and how much more chaotic it was for Londoners and tourists alike. At 7:30 this morning I called a friend of mine who works at the BBC in London. She is always late for work and so I was surprised to find her in her office. Turns out today she managed to leave for work on time and was about 3 trains ahead of one of the explosions. God was certainly watching out for her and I pray she sees that in her life. She also said that Britain shut down mobile phone service to prevent the terrorists from sending detonation signals that way. And yet, I was able to get through to her. This means that if they did want to do that, they would still be able to, as long as they conducted the calls from outside the UK. I find it interesting that they could shut down mobile service at all, let alone only in such a way as to prevent outgoing mobile phone calls...?

In these situations I find the timing and dissemination of information to be interestng. Five minutes before my friend in London was telling me all about the terrorist countermeasures, a Cleveland radio station was reporting that the Underground explosions were due to a power surge in lines. In any event, things seem to be more under control now and as Jim Geraghty reported this morning: "Londoners have always been made of uncommonly tough stuff."

Also, I agree with Mark's earlier post that we should not react too quickly in terms of the stock market. It will rebound a lot sooner than we think. Some will rebound better than others and actually, from a financial perspective it will be better to find stocks now that you know will rebound well and purchase them.

But of course, I recommend praying first.

Posted by Abigail at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 01, 2005

SCOTUS: Equal Opportunity Employer

Yes, Justice O'Connor has resigned. Did you know she was a woman? That has seemed to be a big issue for months now, like there should be pressure to appoint another woman. Well, it would be nice, but I think that the Supreme Court is the last place we should be applying Affirmative Action.

And so I make the same argument I would make at any time against this sort of thing - pick the most qualified person. (And of course, as a conservative, I suggest picking a conservative, but I assume that suggestion to be superfluous.) Mostly I'd say just try not to pick someone who will have a legacy of holding middle ground.

And while I haven't had much time to watch television news coverage since this announcement, I'm really hoping that this is taking up some of the Aruba time allotment.

However, if it has to be a woman, Kathryn Jean Lopez and the rest of The Corner are voting for Katie O'Beirne.

[And while you're at The Corner, check out some amusing reader generated Reuters spoofs. Including this one:
Justice O'Connor formerly served as a judge of the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs a jail reminiscent of the gulags of the former Soviet Union.]

Posted by Abigail at 01:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack