crime

He had been institutionalized for mental health ... by his own parents.

He was on mind-alterning prescription medication.

He pushed his girlfriend around, part of his "abusive" behavior.

He had a history of cutting himself.

He bought all four of his guns at one shop -- two of them just a few days before.

But what was the AP lead?

Steven Kazmierczak had the look of a boyish graduate student — except for the disturbing tattoos that covered his arms.

Yeah. Tattoos are the issue here. Right.

Let's also note that he had a computer (uh-oh) and was apparently drinking large quantities of energy drinks. He also played chess. (Ooooooh!)

He had served in the Army for six months (and current status not quite clear). He also "served as an officer in two student groups dedicated to promoting understanding of the criminal justice system."

He was also known to watch Oprah on weekday afternoons. (Okay, that part is made up. But those tattoos -- obviously that's where the story lies.)

Seems that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government wants to remove public juries from some coroner inquests. I suppose some detainees' causes of death might threaten national security, right?

Provisions in its counter-terrorism bill, published last week, would also allow home secretaries to replace coroners with their own appointees.

Ministers insist the new powers would be used sparingly and the vast majority of inquests will still stay public.

But the move has triggered alarm among opposition MPs, human rights campaigners and lawyers.

Critics say the changes are dangerous and unnecessary meddling with a system that has worked well for 800 years.

A clause in the new bill would allow the home secretary to prevent a jury being called to an inquest and even to change the coroner for "reasons of national security".

You know, in case Winston Smith doesn't confess.

Not sure if the nutroots really want to go there.

Maybe, in the interest of bipartisan ... cleanliness ... they should join the American people over here.

While the Larry Craig scandal post-mortems move over all sorts of Via arcane, almost pointless speculations, I'm left wondering whether this is at all a political win for progressives.

Yes, the GOP is imploding over its holier-than-thou right to hate ______________ (fill in the blank), but is giving the "crime" of Craig's sexual orientation such political validity through all the chest-thumping really a "win"?

Yes, Craig seems to be a cheat. But cheats led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. What's so different now? Because Craig is gay?

This is part of the sad spectacle of American politics that goes back in my memory at least to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, when a clearly unqualified not-quite-a-judge was challenged not over his lack of qualifications but rather over sexual misconduct. Anita Hill may have suffered, and I'm inclined to believe her, but was her suffering really to the point? Clarence Thomas sits on the bench, writing inane opinion and dissent, one after the other, like some grumbling old curmudgeon clinging to the dogmas of his angry view of the world, all because the Democrats would not challenge him on the issue at hand: competence.

And now we see the crowing over the fall of Senator Craig, who is all too typical of the fragile conservative male who needs to pass law after law to prevent him from being himself. And we crow over his fall.

But isn't it a bit tragic? War, bloodshed, corruption in the billions of dollars, domestic and abroad, and the only casualties we see are over sexual "deviance" as defined by a bunch of fearful men afraid of their own shadows.

Some victory. Like standing on the top of the hill that's falling into a deeper and deeper hole.

After all, shouldn't a decent red-blooded conservative be allowed to use violence to prove just how not-gay he is?

Carlson said, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school." When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," as Abrams and Scarborough laughed, Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually." The laughter continued.

Carlson's comments, coupled with laughter from Abrams and Scarborough, suggested to viewers that physical violence is an appropriate response to an unwelcome overture. This is dangerous and wrong.

MSNBC has yet to acknowledge Carlson's comments or address why Abrams and Scarborough laughed while Carlson recounted his actions. Instead, MSNBC has treated Carlson's comments as a laughing matter, re-airing the portion in which Carlson claimed to have been "bothered," but omitting the portion in which he seemed to boast of physical assault.

Typical liberal media bias -- er, liberal blog bias, trying to oppress decent homophobes! Don't the violently-not-gay people in this world have the right to express themselves, too?

After all, it must be so hard for all these conservatives who had to choose not to be gay in the first place.

That is the unfortunate moral of the many stories recapped in a must-read by Violet at Reclusive Leftist:

Here’s an interesting change. After all these stories of women being prosecuted or threatened with legal action for pressing rape charges, today we have a story of a woman being prosecuted for not pressing rape charges.

You all remember that back in 2005, a 17-year-old girl was actually prosecuted for reporting her rape. Not only prosecuted but convicted of a crime — and all because the state decided it couldn’t prove the case against her attackers.

And with the Duke case, as you all know, every sexist twit this side of the Andromeda galaxy took to the intertubes to demand that the victim in that case also be prosecuted, again for the “crime” of reporting a crime that the state decided it couldn’t prove.

And in the De Anza case, a teenage girl who was gang-raped by a sports team was publicly castigated for, again, reporting a crime that the state decided it couldn’t prove.

Anybody see a pattern?

Impeachment of the worst White House administration in history comes up every day in the blogosphere -- and not without its skeptics. I've been rather skeptical about it all myself. What with how the Republicans trivialized impeachment in the '90s, it's hard to take impeachment with any sort of Constitutional seriousness. (And do we really want to follow their lead, anyway?)

However, it took a Republican to convince me that the question is not at all trivial. Especially not today.

Bruce Fein was Ronald Reagan's Justice Department official, and general council to the FCC. Hardly a shill for MoveOn. And yet he made the most powerful argument for impeachment of Bush and Cheney a couple of weeks ago, on Bill Moyers Journal. And his words still haunt me.

Well, this is an unusual affair of president/vice-president, where the vice-president is de facto president most of the time. And that's why most of people recognize that these decisions, especially when it comes to overreaching with executive power, are the product of Dick Cheney and his aide, David Addington, not George Bush and Alberto Gonzalez or Harriet Miers, who don't have the cerebral capacity to think of these devilish ideas. And for that reason, they equate the administration more with Dick Cheney than with George Bush....

...It means asserting powers and claiming that there are no other branches that have the authority to question it. Take, for instance, the assertion that he's made that when he is out to collect foreign intelligence, no other branch can tell him what to do. That means he can intercept your e-mails, your phone calls, open your regular mail, he can break and enter your home. He can even kidnap you, claiming I am seeking foreign intelligence and there's no other branch Congress can't say it's illegal--judges can't say this is illegal. I can do anything I want. That is overreaching. When he says that all of the world, all of the United States is a military battlefield because Osama bin Laden says he wants to kill us there, and I can then use the military to go into your homes and kill anyone there who I think is al-Qaeda or drop a rocket, that is overreaching. That is a claim even King George III didn't make--

....Opening your mail, your e-mails, your phone calls. Breaking and entering your homes. Creating a pall of fear and intimidation if you say anything against the president you may find retaliation very quickly. We're claiming he's setting precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons anytime there's another 9/11.

Right now the victims are people whose names most Americans can't pronounce. And that's why they're not so concerned. They will start being Browns and Jones and Smiths. And that precedent is being set right now. And one of the dangers that I see is it's not just President Bush but the presidential candidates for 2008 aren't standing up and saying--

--"If I'm president, I won't imitate George Bush." That shows me that this is a far deeper problem than Mr. Bush and Cheney.

A deeper problem.

[The Democrats in Congress] have basically renounced-- walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check. It's not an option. It's an obligation when they take that oath to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And I think the reason why this is. They do not have convictions about the importance of the Constitution. It's what in politics you would call the scientific method of discovering political truths and of preventing excesses because you require through the processes of review and vetting one individual's perception to be checked and-- counterbalanced by another's. And when you abandon that process, you abandon the ship of state basically and it's going to capsize....

...This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it's John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, "I am the law. I do what I want. No one else's view matters."

What about Bush's claim that these are extraordinary times?

Cheney and Bush have shown that these measures are optical. Take, for instance, these military conditions that combine judge, jury, and prosecutors. What have they done? They tried the same offenses that are tried in civilian courts. American Taliban John Walker Lindh got 20 years in the civilian courts. And then we have the same offense, David Hicks, he gets nine months in military prison. Why are you creating these extraordinary measures? They aren't needed....

...They're trying to create the appearance that they're tougher than all of their opponents 'cause they're willing to violate the law, even though the violations have nothing to do with actually defeating the terrorism. And we have instances where the president now for years has flouted the Foreign Intelligence Act. He's never said why the act has ever inhibited anybody....

...Certainly in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we were in a fog. There could have been hundreds of thousands terrorist cells. You could understand the president, "I've got to take any action I need right now to uncover a possible second edition of 9/11." And, of course, as soon as I do that, I will go to Congress as soon as possible. I will seek ratification. That's an immediate aftermath of 9/11. We know a lot more in 2007, in July. We know this is not 100 or 1,000 terrorist cells.

We know this is not the danger of the Soviet Union or Hirohito or the Third Reich. And yet the president continues to insist. That's why we need military commissions. We need to say you're an enemy combatant and stick you in prison forever without any judicial review and otherwise.That is a total distortion of what the genuine nature of the problem is and our ability to fight and defeat these terrorists with ordinary civil-- the criminal proceedings....

...But it's saying no, it's the Constitution that's more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.

You should really watch the video, whether you're for or against impeachment. It's quite a conversation.

This is bigger than merely enduring the last dozen-plus months of Bush/Cheney. It's about what we allow to happen to our Constitution.

Impeach.

Puhleez!

How can you not be excited about a movie that features a girl with an M16 as her prosthetic leg.

It's pretty easy, actually.

[via ChurchGal]

33 dead. It's a tragedy. It's shocking. Why? Perhaps only because what we consider so routine we ignore it on a daily basis happened all in one place, on one morning.

Some 16 thousand murders happen each year in the United States. That's about 45 people murdered each day.

45 people.

In our country. In these United States of America.

Where's the outrage about that? We hear about the troubled student and oh, what are we going to do about that? -- that kind of stuff. But what about all the troubled men -- and they are mostly men doing the killing -- what are we going to do about them?

Since that tragedy at Virginia Tech, how many more have been killed? When is that going to be a story within the United States?

What is it that drives men to do this, anyway?

There is something else at work in America than the culture of mean.