That smile is going to get you dead, Chief. Enjoy it.

Mr. Giuliani, testifying in the trial that will determine whether Mr. Moussaoui is put to death or spends the rest of his days in prison, told of seeing a man plunge 100 stories to his death from the center's North Tower. But horrible as the sight was, it was only the beginning.

Moments later, the former mayor said, he saw several more people jump, including two who held hands all the way down. "That image comes back to me every day," Mr. Giuliani told a jury in United States District Court here.

The former mayor, whose cool presence on Sept. 11, 2001, was seen by many as the defining moment of his time in office, did not look at Mr. Moussaoui. Instead, Mr. Giuliani used a pointer and a three-and-a-half-foot scale model of the Twin Towers to depict what he saw that blue-sky morning.

...

As the former mayor testified, Mr. Moussaoui stared at him. Then, when prosecutors played videotapes of the Twin Towers' destruction, Mr. Moussaoui smiled.

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema told the jurors the decision on whether Mr. Moussaoui should be executed is theirs alone. The jurors concluded on Monday that death could at least be considered for Mr. Moussaoui because he was responsible for some of the Sept. 11 deaths.

Is the decision actually theirs alone? Doesn't the judge-- who strikes me as very resistant to applying the death penalty, even in the case of the mass murder of 2800 people -- have the power to enter a judgement notwithstanding the verdict? I thought it was constitutionally required that judges have the power to overturn such verdicts. Practicing lawyers, any help?

I have a bad feeling Brinkima will overturn the jury's decision, if she can.

...

"The only punishment that fits this crime is the death penalty," Mr. Spencer [the prosecutor] said.

But Gerald Zerkin, a court-appointed lawyer for Mr. Moussaoui, asked the jurors to at least "open yourselves to the possibility of a sentence other than death."

I have an alternative sentence. Put him in burning room (with walls fireproofed) on the top floor of the Empire State Building. Let him decide whether or not to jump or be burned alive. If he jumps and lives, then he gets to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Anyone who knows computers knows this, but maybe you're kind of clueless like me.

My computer has been slow and unstable lately, largely because there were a ton of programs automatically loading on start-up that didn't need to automatically load. QuickTime, for example. If I want to watch something in QuickTime, I'll just click on the video. I don't need the freaking thing loading up every single day just because there's a 5% chance I'll use it.

Most crap you download automatically makes itself load at Startup, for some idiotic pissing-contest reason. It's very important to AIM that AIM always load up. Why? I don't know. They're just determined to get these programs uselessly loading in as many computers as they can.

This article is about the problem of startup bloat and how it can slow down your system and make it unstable.

Here's a list of programs to help you eliminate those annoyingly insistent programs. I chose Startup Control Panel, near the bottom of the list. MusicMaker -- out of here! Real Player-- gone! All you stupid little crap programs I use once a month can frigging wait until I actually start you up, rather than draining my system resources.

I actually can't guarantee that some of these programs aren't themselves, in fact, annoying spyware or malware, but the Startup Control Panel doens't seem to have done my computer any damage. It's running quicker now and doesn't crap out on me every two hours.

Posted by: Ace at 07:29 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

...once they hear his "messaging." Or, you know, "message," I guess.

Maryland Democratic Party Executive Director Derek B. Walker said the study verified what, internally, party strategists had already concluded: that African American voters who have served as a reliable base for generations cannot be taken for granted.

"It confirms that in this day and age, everyone expects us to do more than just rest on history," Walker said. "We knew we were going to have to engage. But we also know it will be easier for us to forge that relationship because we're right on the issues."

If the findings of the poll are correct, they paint a somewhat different vision of the black electorate from what has been commonly understood to this point, said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the D.C.-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Bositis said nothing in his research suggests that an African American Republican will be able to grab a significant segment of the black vote.

The DNC survey finds that 22 percent of black voters support Steele when matched against a "generic" Democrat.

"There's just no way it's that high," Bositis said, noting that Steele's performance among black voters in the 2002 election did not approach that number. "If he was that much of a draw then it's doubtful he would only have received 13 percent of the black vote."

There are other aspects of the survey, though, that Bositis says are consistent with national findings. Among them: that young black men represent a voting bloc far less loyal to Democrats. It also finds more support for Steele in Baltimore than in Prince George's County, more backing among churchgoers, and stronger support among those without a college degree.

In an interview in his State House office yesterday, Steele clutched the DNC report like a football coach who just got his hands on the opposing team's playbook. He said a copy "landed on our doorstep" in the past week.

"This explains everything," he said. "They're afraid of what I represent. They're afraid of the fact that African American voters have options, and I'm one of them."

Is it racist that some blacks will only vote for a Republican if that Republican is black? Certainly it would be racist if whites would only vote for whites. Why the double standard?

That aside, this is mildy good news, though I agree the poll probably greatly overstates Steele's appeal among black voters. I'm guessing it's intended as a bit of a shock-document to encourage more Democratic spending in the race, and more Democratic attacks on Steele.

Posted by: Ace at 07:17 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

Rightalk will be carrying the audio of the debate. Hit the indicated button; the debate will start sometime between 8 and 8:30 ET. (They're apparently not quite decided on the start time; perhaps Ward Churchill is waiting for the Coyote God to tell him what time would give him the best medicine for the debate.)

And Kos -- the little weasel who got bullied as a kid and holds the whole world responsible -- will be on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

I expect Colbert to go pretty gently on him, but I still expect Kos to come off very badly. Goldstein says he hears Kos just exudes "total frickin' douchebag."

Thanks to Allah for the reminder on that.

Posted by: Ace at 07:09 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Few details yet, but if Harry Reid likes it, I have a feeling I won't:

- In a last stab at compromise, Senate Republicans and Democrats reported progress Thursday toward agreement on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally.

"There's been tremendous progress overnight," said Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the Democratic leader, while Majority Leader Bill Frist also expressed optimism that a long-sought compromise might be at hand.

There was no immediate reaction from President Bush, who has made immigration legislation a key priority.

...

In general, the legislation would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the flow of future immigrants into the United States and settle the legal fate of the estimated 11 million men, women and children already in the country.

It was the fate of the illegal immigrant population that proved hardest to legislate, and it has left the Senate on the verge of gridlock for days.

...

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., as well as other key senators met before the vote to review terms of a proposed compromise.

In general, it would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

Charles Krauthammer had a typically excellent take on the Brit Hume show. The idea of amnesty -- and this is amnesty, of course, though no one wants to say so -- would be more palatable if first we established that the endless flow of Mexican immigrants to America would be reduced to a trickle. Put up a wall and patrol it vigorously, stop 90% of future illegal migrants, and then the idea of minting millions of new American citizens isn't so bad. So long as this is the last time -- so long as we're going to stop the endless illegal immigration -- then it's not such a horrible compromise to be generous towards those attracted by our schizophrenic immigration laws, the wink-wink nudge-nudge manner by which we let farm-owners and other employers hire hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants (under the table; no income or Social Security taxes paid), and the lax enforcement of our supposed "laws."

But that generosity should only come if there is a guarantee that this is it. The best compromises are not half-measures, a little bit for you, a little bit for me. The best compromises are composed of an exchange of core principles, neither of them watered down or half-assed.

For one side: the wall and vigorous patrolling, and stiffer penalties for future illegals, and local policemen required to report and detain illegals, rather than giving them sanctuary.

For the other side: a generous welcoming of those already here, and a path to full citizenship.

This bill, of course, gives most of the latter but none of the former. We have bullshit claims that we'll "increase border security," but of course we'll be doing no such thing.

So -- we will be creating essentially a legal, official regime of open borders, with some minor bureaucratic hurdles for those wishing to come to the country and work here, and eventually become citizens.

If illegal immigrants share one political amition, it's for open borders, and more immigration, legal or not. So we're letting in millions of people -- soon to be voting citizens -- dedicated to allowing in further millions, and neither party feels they can afford to alienate them. As those millions become dozens of millions, it will be politically impossible to effect any sort of limits on immigration at all.

And don't buy the bullshit that Hispanics vote Republican. They don't. They vote more Republican than many other minority groups, but they are still 60-40 in favor of Democrats, or thereabouts. So every ten million new Mexican-American voters puts 2 million votes in the Democrats hands-- who will of course seek to pad their numbers by allowing more immigrants to become citizens.

Voters should select their politicians. However, we now have politicians selecting their voters, and it's only going to get worse.

Posted by: Ace at 07:00 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.

Expect a filibuster in the Senate; virtually unlimited spending by George Soros and the like is too important to the Democrats.

The House approved campaign finance legislation last night that would benefit Republicans by placing strict caps on contributions to nonprofit committees that spent heavily in the last election while removing limits on political parties' spending coordinated with candidates.

The bill passed 218 to 209 in a virtual party-line vote.

Lifting party spending limits would aid Republican candidates because the GOP has consistently raised far more money than the Democratic Party. Similarly, barring "527" committees from accepting large unregulated contributions known as "soft money" would disadvantage Democrats, whose candidates received a disproportionate share of the $424 million spent by nonprofit committees in 2003-2004.

The 527 committees, named for a section of the tax law, are tax-exempt organizations that use voter mobilization and issue-based ads to influence federal elections. They grew in importance after the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law barred federal candidates and national parties from accepting unlimited donations from individuals, unions and corporations.

In 2003-2004, for example, international financier George Soros broke all contribution records by giving a total of $27 million to pro-Democratic groups such as America Coming Together and the Media Fund.

Although the measure's prospects for approval in the Senate are considered slim, House Republicans wanted a vote on what they could describe as "reform" legislation. At the same time, GOP leaders sought to embarrass Democrats by making them vote in apparent support of the use of soft money in federal campaigns.

If McCain was such a bear to get soft money, supposedly corrupting, out of the system, why did he allow this loophole? No one is surprised this became a bonanza for soft-money spending; it was predicted months before the measure actually passed (and people like Harold Ickes were already preparing to set up 527's for just this purpose before passage).

McCain, the straight-talker, seems to have permitted this just to get Democratic votes, so he could have on his record a law that purported to stop exorbitant soft-money campaign spendings, but which actually did nothing of the kind.

I'm not in favor of campaign finance limits generally, but McCain supposedly was. So why did he permit this boondoggle? If we're going to have limits, then we should have real limits. If we're not going to have limits -- junk the whole law.

Posted by: Ace at 06:15 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Not with regard to Valerie "007" Plame. But with respect to various parts of the National Intelligence Estimate Bush thought would help buttress his case for war with Iraq, and counter charges leveled at him by other leakers, such as Joseph Wilson.

Libby says that Cheney told him the disclosures were legal, as by authorizing the disclosure, Bush had effectively declassified the documents.

I'm not sure if that's correct legally, though administration lawyers supposedly approved it. Certainly it's not the preferred method of declassification, which would be to, you know, officially declassify the document (or parts thereof) and make it public, rather than selectively leaking it to reporters.

But given the nature of the war between the CIA and Bush Administration, perhaps Bush thought the CIA and other intelligence services were claiming that anything that helped him were "classified" and could not be made public, while meanwhile leaking like sieves anything that cast the Administration in a bad light.

Posted by: Ace at 06:11 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Dave's, a very funny video: the Easter Bunny Hates You. Not safe for work in offices which have a firm policy against giant humanoid bunny punch-outs.

And at Donnah's a hero's funeral that deserves to be protested. Seriously. Because some geeks playing World of Warcraft online tried to give a fallen "hero" a nice little funeral, and a bunch of other geeks come and raid the online funeral, and kill all the participants.

Funnier in concept than in execution -- it really would have been great to have voice-over audio of these guys screaming "You assholes! This is sacred!" which, alas, they don't have -- but still funny.

Update: Fred Phelps has issued a statement commending the fake-funeral disruptors, stating that "Anyone who plays World of Warcraft is, by definition, a homo."

Posted by: Ace at 05:56 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

That's hardly news. The real story is how he manages to keep his lunch money as an adult.

You can tell the sort of people who were bullied a lot as kids. Not that they deserved that. But they carry that with them for the rest of their lives, often becoming, well, douchebags like Kos. They're in an arrested-development perpetual drive for vengeance against their childhood tormentors, and, if they can't be found, anyone who vaguely reminds them of those tormentors -- like, you know, Republicans -- will do.

I forget the context, but Louis Anderson had one funny line, where he dismissively said, "Just... look at them."

That's what Kos reminds me of. Just... look at him.

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM | Comments (119)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

A recent post from Steve from Hog On Ice just reminded me: Passover draws near, and Coke made with real sugar (the way G-d intended) is on the shelves. Yellow cap. The Real Thing. Go get some now.

Posted by: LauraW. at 12:43 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.