RADLEY BALKO has more thoughts on paramilitary police raids. I agree on the difficulty of winning a Section 1983 suit. It happens, and sometimes there’s a settlement before trial — I consulted on a case a few years ago that produced a big settlement, though it should have produced a bigger one — but it’s very much an uphill battle.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS march against Hugo Chavez in Caracas, according to this report. Pretty impressive photo.

BLOGGING ABOUT BIG SCREEN TV’S AT TALKLEFT. Here’s a big post on the subject from InstaPundit a while back.

I wound up buying this one, and I remain quite happy with it. Note that I was able to get the local H.H. Gregg store to match the Amazon price. And here’s some advice from the folks at Consumer Reports.

RON BAILEY LOOKS AT big ideas for the future of energy. “Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.”

GRASSROOTS POPULISM: It’s in the most unlikely places.

HEH: “I guess you can be an absolute moral authority without being an absolute spelling authority.”

WELL, YES. Glenn Greenwald is extraordinarily lame, even when he’s writing under his own name. The problem with the term “Christianist” isn’t that it adds “ist” to the end of a religion. It’s that, by parallelling “Islamist,” it is a deliberate attempt at conflating people who oppose gay marriage — or, apparently, Madonna’s schlocky posturing — with people who blow up discos and mosques, and throw gay people off of walls. That’s the kind of execrable moral equivalence engaged in by the Soviets and their proxies, and it’s the sort of thing that Andrew Sullivan used to oppose eloquently, before he started to engage in it himself.

For a more intelligent take, read this. And there’s a bit more, here.

UPDATE: More on the difference between Islamists and “Christianists,” in a video that can be found here. It’s a sad thing — actually, it’s a shameful thing — that I have to point this out.

MICKEY KAUS: “Alcee Hastings has mounted his defense, and it looks like the last-ditch variety.”

UPDATE: Joe Conason: “No doubt Pelosi understands that she, the Congressional Black Caucus and the new Democratic Congress will hear mocking laughter from all sides if they turn HPSCI over to Hastings. They may mumble about the possibility that the FBI crime lab compromised the evidence against him, or claim that they now worry about the fairness of his impeachment trial. Weighed against their own votes to impeach and convict him, and against their promises to clean up the corrupt Congress, those claims will count for nothing. The chairmanship of a select committee is not an entitlement, and grave doubts about the integrity of Hastings should disqualify him.” (Via A.L.F.).

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has some useful thoughts on pork:

Are Americans in love with pork? I find that hypothesis doubtful. Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona, who has crusaded against pork in Congress, ran on an explicitly anti-pork platform in Arizona for his re-election campaign. He promised to keep pork from flowing into his district — and he won re-election by a margin of 74%-26%, outpolling his challenger by 71,000 votes out of 147,000.

Why did Flake win? Voters in his district understand that pork and earmarks are the gateway drug to corruption. Every major corruption scandal has revolved around earmarking federal funds for grants and contracts to specific entities, who have returned the favor by showering the politicians with favors, gifts, and cash — plenty of cash. Bribery does not work as easily on the macro level in Congress, because it takes so many votes to get a bill passed. Instead, corrupting influences focus on gaining federal money through amendments and earmarks because those are routinely carried as a professional courtesy into the final version of the legislation.

If one cares about clean government, then one has to oppose pork and the earmarking process. At the very least, the process should be stripped of its anonymity and exposed to the taxpayers who foot the bill. If we can stop earmarks, then we can limit the damage possible from corrupt politicians. We need to promote more Jeff Flakes for office, and fewer Robert Byrds, Trent Lotts, and Ted Kennedys.

Read the whole thing.

A TOUCHING FAITH in the good sense of the American people.

Actually, that would be a good show — where the real Kramer gets a lot of heat for the behavior of the actor who plays him on TV. It’s almost Seinfeldian. . . .

THINGS ARE HEATING UP IN OAXACA, and it doesn’t look pretty.

UPDATE: Drew Kelley emails:

If Iraq is a “civil war”, and it is a multi-party dispute over who is going to run things; what in the hell is Mexico, where you actually have a second “government” (I think we could have a real good debate as to whether or not Mexico has a first “government”) proclaimed as the legitimate voice of the people, and there is various degrees of anarchy in the streets of major cities throughout the country? Just who does run Laredo? Juarez? Chiapas? What constitutes a civil war in Mexico?

Mexico isn’t like Iraq, but it’s in worse shape than most Americans realize.

SO I WENT TO THE MALL, and it was crowded but not absolutely jammed, probably because of the football game. The mall workers told me that it was extremely busy yesterday on “Black Friday,” so I guess people are shopping.

Mary Katharine Ham, meanwhile, reports that this year’s Black Friday coverage is much more positive, now that we’ve entered the bold new age of Democratic-led prosperity. “Three cheers for Democrats and their Black-Friday-Fixin’, Reluctance-Banishing, Cure-All Economic Elixir!”

Plus, a look back at the reporting of Michael Hiltzik!

JOHN WIXTED has decided to support raising the minimum wage.

HOLIDAY SHOPPING ON FRIDAY was reportedly “huge.” And online shopping was strong enough to stall Wal-Mart’s website.

I’m doing (actually, have already done) most of my Christmas shopping at old reliable, but I will be taking the girls to the mall later today. I’ll report back on how it looks, though I’m pretty sure the answer is going to be “crowded as hell.”

UPDATE: Time for another poll!

RADLEY BALKO HAS MORE on the Atlanta no-knock raid that resulted in the death of a 92-year-old woman. Plus this useful observation:

If the police storm in and you — not being a drug dealer and consequently having no reason to think the police might break into your home — mistake them for criminal intruders and meet them with a gun, you are at fault. I guess your crime is living in an area where drug dealers could use your porch while you aren’t home, or being a too trusting, frail, old woman. Sorry about your luck.

On the other hand, if the police break into your home and they mistake the blue cup, TV remote, the t-shirt you’re holding to cover your genitals because they broke in while you were sleeping naked, or the glint off your wristwatch for a gun — and subsequently shoot you (all of these scenarios have actually happened), well, then no one is to blame. Because, you see, SWAT raids are inherently dangerous and volatile, and it’s perfectly understandable how police might mistake an innocent person holding a t-shirt for a violent drug dealer with gun.

Do you see the double standard, here? If the warrant is legit, they are allowed to make mistakes. You aren’t.

This discrepancy grows all the more absurd when you consider that they have extensive training, you don’t. They have also spent hours preparing for the raid. You were startled from your sleep, and have just seconds to make a life-or-death decision. To top it all off, many times they’ve just deployed a flashbang grenade that is designed to confuse and disorient you.

What’s the solution? It isn’t to encourage people to start shooting raiding cops to kill. That kind of talk is foolish, and needs to stop. But it isn’t to encourage to people to refrain from defending their homes, either. Both of those suggestions will lead to more people dying — both police and citizens.

The solution is actually pretty simple: Stop invading people’s homes for nonviolent offenses.

Yes. Also, the police should be held strictly liable for mistakes, without benefit of official immunity. And they should be required to record video of the entire proceedings, in a tamper-resistant format.

UPDATE: Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, an interesting comment from Tom Holsinger:

I have about 700-800 hours of experience litigating police brutality and excessive force cases as plaintiff’s counsel in private practice, and evaluating them as a trial court research attorney, mostly the former. My county, Stanislaus in California, had a tragedy occur during a no-knock raid when a police officer accidently killed a young boy in bed with the accidental discharge of a shotgun.

IMO the standard which should be used for wrongful death and injury actions by persons other than those identified in the warrant in no-knock raids should be strict liability. Ditto for even the person identified in the warrant if the items searched for are not found.

No-knock searches create an inherent major risk of harm to innocent persons such that compensation for injury should be mandated. I.e., immunity would be irrelevant. Pay immediately. Plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.

I think he’s exactly right, of course.

LONDON POISONING UPDATE: Reportedly, it was polonium, and others are at risk. Has Putin overstepped this time?

UPDATE: Paul Milenkovic emails:

To ask if Mr. Putin has overstepped, if he is indeed implicated as the victim of poisoning has charged, is to put things a bit mildly. For all of the talk of the terrorist threat from the political Islam and a nuclear threat ranging from an atom bomb downwards towards “dirty bombs”, it appears that the first radiologicial act of terrorism was state-sponsored and connected to Russia.

And this is radiological terrorism. In addition to killing one man, one has to ask how many others were exposed, perhaps not to a lethal dose but to a quantity to result in cancer some years later? While this does not rise to the level of a dirty bomb attack, it certainly crosses a threshold and gives other terrorists ideas regarding the kind of attack they could stage.

Conducting an assassination in a foreign country by shooting a man or perhaps by poison is one thing, but employing a radioactive poison is crossing a threshold we all hoped would not be crossed. If this sort of thing had been connected to political Islam there would have been some serious repercussions, but as Russia still maintains a nuclear arsenal, they will get away with this, and there will be terrible consequences for letting this pass.

Well, at least this is out, and not being covered up the way some Iranian assassination efforts have been.

GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS: Extreme Mortman notes that James Webb and George Allen agree on this issue, something that escaped the notice of the New York Times as it ridiculed Allen for his position.

I predict that Webb will produce more embarrassments of this sort for the Times and various others.

MORE NEWS FROM ANBAR, at The Mudville Gazette.

And there’s more here, including a complaint that the rules of engagement are leaving U.S. forces “hamstrung.”

UPDATE: Reader Nicholas Klemen emails:

I want to point out a huge difference between Iraq and Vietnam that people fail to mention. In Vietnam, we had one powerful enemy, and our defeat assured the communist victory.

In Iraq, there are at least 5 major warring factions, perhaps more. Kurds, secular Sunnis, fundie Sunnis, nationalist Shia, and Iranian-backed Shia. Even if we haven’t won this round, neither has anyone else. This war isn’t over…not be a longshot. That doesn’t mean we need to stay and occupy, but we can pick winners and use diplomacy to guide the result of the civil war into a democracy.

I don’t know if we can pick winners, but we may be able to pick a couple of losers, which may be good enough. (Seeing that the right people lose is important, after all). The Sunnis seem to have picked themselves as losers, and to be doing their best to ensure that they’ll be driven out of the country in response to their campaign of terror.

UPDATE: I don’t think that what’s happening to the Sunnis is a good thing; I just think they’ve brought it on themselves by foolishly stirring up a civil war that they can’t win. They haven’t been as canny as I’d hoped. What’s going on now is a political, not a military problem — we’d rather it were a military problem because we’re better at military matters than politics — and it will require an Iraqi political solution. The Sunnis, however, seem to me to have ensured that it will be a solution that they don’t like.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A more detailed, and positive, take at The Mudville Gazette.

BUCK SARGENT says goodbye.

SOME INTERESTING STEM CELL NEWS:

Dr. Dick’s discovery of the first cancer stem cell that year has led to the flurry of recent breakthroughs redefining cancer biology. Scientists once believed all cancer cells could sprout and sustain a tumour. But proof is growing that this deadly power belongs only to a tiny subset of abnormal stem cells that had previously gone undetected. These bad seeds have now been identified as the source of cancers of the blood, breast, bone, prostate, and this week, in another finding from Dr. Dick, the colon.

The implications are staggering. Billions of dollars and decades of research may have targeted the wrong cells to cure the disease. No current treatment has been designed to kill them and they appear to be naturally resistant to the gold-standard therapies.

This may lead to new and better treatments, which is good. It’s kind of depressing to think that we may have been going about things all wrong, though. (Via NewsBeat1).

SANDY LEVINSON: “This is the perfect time for Speaker-designate Pelosi to announce that she will sponsor a bill, ideally with the outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert, to revert to the older Succession in Office Act that was replaced in 1947 with the present one. This would indeed make Condoleezza Rice the designated successor were the vice presidency vacant. It would represent an act of high statepersonship and, as much as any single act could do, establish that she means it when she describes the arrival not only of new leadership, but a new public-spiritiedness to replace naked partisanship.”

Mike Rappaport agrees. Any idea that can draw the support of both is worth thinking about.

UPDATE: Ilya Somin agrees, too, and adds: “There is also another weakness in the current system, one that Michael and Sandy don’t consider in their posts. Fourth in line under the 1947 act is the president pro tempore of the Senate. By tradition, the president pro temp is the longest-serving Senator of the majority party. The current PPT is Republican porker Ted Stevens of Alaska – soon to be replaced by the Democrats’ own ‘King of Pork,’ Bob Byrd of West Virginia. In addition to their other shortcomings, both Stevens and Byrd are in their 80s (83 and 89 respectively). This is not accidental. By its very nature, the presidency pro temp is likely to be held by elderly and often infirm politicians. Senators who last for decades are also likely (by virtue of their seniority) to be heavily implicated in porkbarreling and other dubious practices of the world’s greatest deliberative body. For these reasons, among others, the PPT should not be included in the line of presidential succession.”

JIM GERAGHTY NOTES THAT assassination is now becoming stylish.

IF YOU’RE IN LONDON, Jackie Danicki could use your help with a photo identification.

PATTERICO IS fact-checking the Los Angeles Times on Ramadi.

UPDATE: Marc Danziger says that Patterico is understating his case.

BLOGGER ACQUITTED IN CANADA:

The judge who acquitted a New Brunswick blogger of obstructing justice says Charles LeBlanc was merely “plying his trade” at a protest last summer and shouldn’t have been arrested. . . .

LeBlanc, who writes about poverty and politics on his website, was arrested and pinned to the ground by three police officers outside a business conference last June. A police officer later admitted to deleting a photo of himself from LeBlanc’s camera.

So how about charges against the cops?