PROBLEMS with the Space Elevator concept? They don’t sound insuperable to me.
Archive for 2006
May 27, 2006
FRANCE DEFEATED AGAIN: By New World wines:
At the tasting of 10 red and 10 white wines, evenly split between French and American in both classes, the panel awarded the top place in both categories to Californian wine. A Chateau Montelena Chardonnay 1973 topped the white wines, beating famous French names such as Puligny-Montrachet.
In the red category, a Stag’s Leap Cabernet-Sauvignon 1973, now unobtainable, beat names such as Chateau Mouton-Rothschild 1973 (now roughly £100 a bottle).
There was only one journalist there. The French media stayed away, assuming the result would be a bore.
It wasn’t.
UPDATE: More on the new result here:
French and California winemakers marked the 30th anniversary of the storied Judgment of Paris tasting with another sip-and-spit showdown.
California won — and by more than a nose.
The domestic wines took the top five of 10 spots, with a 1971 Ridge Monte Bello cabernet sauvignon from the Santa Cruz mountains coming out on top Wednesday.
“Today was a snapshot in time and all the stars were aligned properly. We had a lot of fun,” said Peter Marks, director of wine at Copia, the Napa Valley wine and arts centre where the New World end of the tasting was held. A European panel of tasters met at a London wine merchant to give their rating.
Cool.
BRIAN NOGGLE is unhappy with ballot technicalities in Missouri.
JEFFERSON SCANDAL UPDATE:
A former aide to U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was sentenced Friday to eight years in prison for his role in a bribery scandal involving the congressman.
Brett Pfeffer, 37, of Herndon, Va., pleaded guilty in January to two bribery-related charges: conspiracy to commit bribery and aiding and abetting bribery of a public official.
Pfeffer’s eight-year term was in the mid-range of the federal sentencing guidelines. Pfeffer, who is cooperating in the ongoing investigation of Jefferson, may be eligible for a reduction of his sentence once his cooperation is complete, said prosecutor Mark Lytle.
I wonder what that cooperation will involve.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, an interesting backstory at the Justice Department:
The Justice Department signaled to the White House this week that the nation’s top three law enforcement officials would resign or face firing rather than return documents seized from a Democratic congressman’s office in a bribery investigation, according to administration sources familiar with the discussions.
The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson’s office.
Assuming this report (based on anonymous sources) is true, it seems likely that this means the Jefferson investigation goes well beyond the not-entirely-newsworthy phenomenon of a corrupt Louisiana Congressman. Even if the claims of Congressional immunity are bogus — which they are — I can’t imagine these guys threatening resignation over a run-of-the-mill corruption case. That makes me think that there are a lot of other members of Congress implicated, which perhaps also explains the rather, um, vigorous reaction from Congress.
UPDATE: Some speculation on what might be going on.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader who claims insider knowledge says not to get ahead of the news cycle on the Gonzales-resignation story. Well, stay tuned!
MORE: Some thoughts from Ed Morrissey:
Hastert and his colleagues have busied themselves with goalpost-moving and backtracking. Before, they claimed a Constitutional privilege of freedom from search warrants and subpoenas from the executive branch, even though Congress regularly issues subpoenas without judicial approval against members of the executive branch. Now Hastert has acknowledged that Congressmen are subject to the same laws as everyone else, but have modified their complaint; now they say the issue is that Jefferson and his attorney were not allowed to be present at the search. That’s a far cry from the phony Constitutional crisis they declared earlier this week, perhaps a more reasonable issue and certainly one that didn’t require Hastert’s intercession. He could have kept his mouth shut and let Jefferson’s attorney raise that question when the evidence got submitted for trial — just like any other defendant in a criminal case.
The denouement of this kerfuffle demonstrates two very important points. George Bush still holds the power in Washington and in the GOP, and this controversy shows that he and the people at Justice remain the adults in charge of the day care center. Hastert has severely damaged himself politically in two ways. No one in the GOP will ever give Hastert the same level of trust again after this attempt to pervert the Constitution, and Republicans will remain furious with him for taking the focus off of William Jefferson and his cash-cow business in selling his vote.
That sounds about right to me.
May 26, 2006
ATLAS VLOGS.
MEMORIAL DAY THOUGHTS, FROM VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Worth reading, as always.
TUCKER MAX wins a lawsuit.
JEFFERSON ON JEFFERSON: Writing in Slate, Akhil Amar writes on the Framers’ views on Congressional immunity:
None of what T.J. said helps W.J. W.J. is a target of a criminal corruption investigation, and if criminally charged, he would have no more Arrest Clause protection than any of the countless other sitting Congress members who have been criminally prosecuted over the years—Dan Rostenkowski, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, to name just three.
Since W.J. has no immunity from an ordinary criminal arrest, it is hard to see why he has some kind of blanket immunity from an ordinary criminal search to uncover evidence of his suspected crime. If other white-collar suspects are vulnerable to office searches, why is William Jefferson any different?
What about the remainder of Article I, Section 6, which specifically protects congressional “Speech or Debate”? Here, too, the language provides little shelter for W.J.
This is no surprise. The scope of Congressional immunity is, and always has been, narrow. What’s disappointing is that the Speaker of the House, and so many of his colleagues, are either abysmally ignorant of an aspect of constitutional law that’s directly related to their jobs, or that they’re just flat-out dishonest. Either way, they deserve every bit of political damage they suffer.
UPDATE: More from Prof. Rachel Barkow of NYU, interviewed in the WSJ:
What do you make of the arguments from members of Congress?
“They’re reading [the speech and debate clause] very broadly, more broadly than I think is even remotely justifiable,” she says. There have been other cases where members of Congress have been subjected to criminal process for things that take place outside of their legislative duties; Ms. Barkow says she doesn’t see any reason why a search warrant couldn’t be executed on a congressional office.
What about the argument that this FBI raid represents an extension of the power of the executive branch?
The FBI is an arm of the executive branch. But the warrant was approved through the courts, part of the judiciary branch. “It’s not unilateral executive action. It was done with approval of the judiciary in so far as they had to get a warrant,” Ms. Barkow says.
This is not an especially difficult question.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Heh.
MICHAEL YON HAS A POST on the stolen photo issue:
I first became aware of the infringement when stunned and angry readers contacted me under the mistaken belief that I allowed SHOCK magazine to use it on their cover. I did not, and never would have agreed to their usage. I regularly turn down usage requests for this photo — uses that could earn money — because this photo is sacred to me and is representative of the U.S. soldiers I have come to know. It is also representative of the horrors of the enemy we all face.
My attorneys are in discussions with those at fault, and we have demanded that all copies of the magazine be removed from circulation and from the internet.
Stay tuned.
RAMESH PONNURU ASKS: “Is this really what the Republican Senate wants to take up in the aftermath of the immigration bill? A bill to pave the way for secessionism in Hawaii?”
REUTERS HAS SUSPENDED AN EMPLOYEE over threats aimed at Charles Johnson.
THE CARNIVAL OF CARS IS UP!
THE APPLE V. DOES DECISION is out, and Denise Howell is blogging it. It looks like a good result for the blogosphere.
UPDATE: Stanford’s Lauren Gelman calls it a “huge win” for Internet journalism.
THIS IS COOL: “Contests energize the battle against aging.”
THE LATEST BLOG WEEK IN REVIEW PODCAST is now up, with special guest Jeff Goldstein.
GOOD NEWS: “The International Ski Federation approved women’s ski jumping for the 2009 World Championships Friday, an important step before gaining Olympic approval.”
TIM LYNCH ON FANNIE MAE and trimming government for dummies.
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH has been confirmed by the Senate.
A LETTER TO CINDY SHEEHAN from Cathy Seipp. It begins, “Dear Useful Idiot.”
FOR SOME REASON, I haven’t been getting email this morning. It seems to be some sort of gmail problem, and it’ll probably fix itself, but if you’ve emailed me through the site and I’ve missed it, I’m sorry.
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: More on pork and corruption in the House:
Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, another conservative stalwart, tried unsuccessfully to strip millions of dollars worth of farm subsidies out of the bill. “I offered eight amendments and every single one got voted down,” he says.
After the defeat, Flake told the New York Times, “”We have one of our former members in jail right now for basically selling earmarks”—referring to disgraced former member Randy “Duke” Cunningham. “He was able to get his earmarks through the legislative process without being challenged. Jack Abramoff reportedly referred to the Appropriations Committee as an ‘earmark favor factory.’”
In response to these comments, the earmarks’ defenders told the Times that Flake’s comments were out of line.
1994. Again. Right? I mean, these guys were never rocket scientists, but when I see this many people acting this stupidly — and in the face of lousy approval ratings that should be getting their attention — I have to wonder what I’m missing.
UPDATE: More here from Jacob Sullum:
Like most of their colleagues, Bonilla and Obey think buying votes with other people’s money is perfectly honorable—indeed, something (unlike respecting the Constitution) they are obligated to do as the people’s representatives. Hence it is light years away from the blatant corruption represented by such malefactors as Cunningham and Abramoff. Flake’s point, which Bonilla and Obey pretended to miss, was that the earmark system, by allowing legislators to quietly slip in funding for pet projects, invites such corruption.
But pork is also a form of corruption in itself, involving the use of taxpayer money not to perform the legitimate functions of the federal government but to serve the legislator’s own interest–in this case, staying in power, which brings with it all sorts of perks. Cunningham did pretty much the same thing, bringing federal money to his district at the behest of his constituents, except that he got some additional goodies in the process. If the actions are the same, does the antique armoire make all the difference?
To some people.
JOHN TABIN on the Jefferson search.
A BEGINNING FOR THE EUSTON MANIFESTO: Norm Geras has thoughts.
A FANNIE MAE SCANDAL TIMELINE: You’d think a scandal involving this much money and politics would get more attention. (Via Mickey Kaus).