The spin from AP is pretty blatant:

Jose Padilla, once accused of plotting with al-Qaida to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years and four months on terrorism conspiracy charges that don't mention those initial allegations.

The sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke marks another step in the extraordinary personal and legal odyssey for the 37-year- old Muslim convert, a U.S. citizen who was held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant after his 2002 arrest amid the "dirty bomb" allegations. He had faced up to life in prison.

Cooke also imposed prison terms on two other men of Middle Eastern origin who were convicted of conspiracy and material support charges along with Padilla in August. The three were part of a North American support cell for al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists around the world, prosecutors said.

Actually, a jury said that too, AP. Just in case you missed it.

Padilla was added in 2005 to an existing Miami terrorism support case just as the U.S. Supreme Court was considering his challenge to President Bush's decision to hold him in custody indefinitely without charge. The "dirty bomb" charges were quietly discarded and were never part of the criminal case.

Cooke sentenced Padilla's recruiter, 45-year-old Adham Amin Hassoun, to 15 years and eight months in prison and the third defendant, 46- year-old Kifah Wael Jayyousi, to 12 years and eight months. Jayyousi was a financier and propagandist for the cell that assisted Islamic extremists in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere, according to trial testimony. Both also faced life in prison.

The men were convicted after a three-month trial based on tens of thousands of FBI telephone intercepts collected over an eight-year investigation and a form Padilla filled out in 2000 to attend an al- Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member with a long criminal record, converted to Islam in prison and was recruited by Hassoun while attending a mosque in suburban Sunrise.

Padilla sought a sentence of no more than 10 years. Hassoun asked for 15 years or less and Jayyousi for no more than five years.

Padilla's arrest was initially portrayed by the Bush administration as an important victory in the months immediately after the Sept. 11, terror attacks, and later was seen as a symbol of the administration's zeal to prevent homegrown terrorism. Prosecutors repeatedly invoked al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden in the criminal case.

Hm. Prosecutors repeatedly invoked Al Qaeda and bin Ladin in a case about men illegally providing support to Al Qaeda and bin Ladin.

The MSM trope that it's always somehow dirty pool to bring up Al Qaeda and bin Ladin now extends to terrorism cases of men who actually signed an Al Qaeda recruitment form.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

So says a campaign insider.

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.

Geraghty thinks his next announcement, though, will be to drop out of the race.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

If'n you care.

1. Best Picture: "Atonement," "Juno," "Michael Clayton," "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood."

2. Actor: George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"; Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"; Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street"; Tommy Lee Jones, "In the Valley of Elah"; Viggo Mortensen, "Eastern Promises."

3. Actress: Cate Blanchett, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"; Julie Christie, "Away From Her"; Marion Cotillard, "La Vie en Rose"; Laura Linney, "The Savages"; Ellen Page, "Juno."

4. Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"; Javier Bardem, "No Country for Old Men"; Hal Holbrook, "Into the Wild"; Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Charlie Wilson's War"; Tom Wilkinson, "Michael Clayton."

5. Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There"; Ruby Dee, "American Gangster"; Saoirse Ronan, "Atonement"; Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"; Tilda Swinton, "Michael Clayton."

6. Director: Julian Schnabel, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"; Jason Reitman, "Juno"; Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"; Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"; Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood."

I'm surprised by the lack of conservative notice for Juno. It's not really a political film, and its politics are a little muddled, I guess, but I would have thought commentators would take note of its pro-life message -- the heroine, Juno, ends her plan to abort her baby when a pro-life protester outside a clinic tells her her baby has fingernails.

I didn't write a review but it's a pretty good movie. I'm usually annoyed by the precocious wisecracking teenager cliche -- they're never funny, and usually just as sophomorically obnoxious as, well, real-life precocious wisecracking teenagers -- but the writers actually give the heroine a few funny wisecracks and the actress (Ellen Page, I think) is cute and winning enough to sell the whole thing.

The movie has the obligatory ambiguously bittersweet ending that almost all independent movies have (something that's become just as expected and contrived in independent movies as happy endings are in mainstream movies), but it's well acted and enjoyable.

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

At least, that's what New York Times reporter Robert Pear says.

President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects, but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future, administration officials said Monday.

[...]

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. BushÂ’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy.

Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.

In effect, the White House is avoiding a clash with Congress over specific projects while preserving the presidentÂ’s ability to demand a further reduction in earmarks generally.

This does not sound to me like a good way to combat earmarks. It just adds another layer of people who have to be bought. The president's office is just going to target the earmarks it doesn't like or those which come from congressfolk it doesn't like. I suppose that is better than nothing, but as an attempt to "avoid a clash with Congress" I suspect it will fail spectacularly.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:24 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

I was reading through some lectures from 1955 when I came across a curious word, one that I'd never seen before. I couldn't even puzzle it out from the context and so was sent running for the (online) dictionary.

Now I'm wondering if many people don't know the word (there is hardly a reason to use it anymore) or if I just missed out on it back when I was learning my SAT vocab cards. Given its tangential relation to the AOSHQ lifestyle, I thought I'd ask you guys to put some learnin' to me.

The word is totalisator. What is it? Have you used one? Have you even seen one? Are they still around?

No Googling!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:12 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

I Don't Give A Fuck

Old Craigslist listing for cinderblocks.

Might be real. Might not. I have no idea. If you've ever gotten exasperated dealing with buyers, it's pretty funny.

Thanks to Man of Substance.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:12 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Confederate Yankee continues his publication of the Army's response to his FOIA request with two statements from Beauchamp himself.

There's not a flat out admission of fabricating the stories but there's no claim they are true either. Beauchamp walks a very fine line about what he admits to and uses a number of qualifying statements like, 'since I have been driving' or 'some people either thought or were told'. If nothing else, you have to give it to him for being a slippery bastard.

It's also pretty clear the Army wasn't pressuring him to recant or at least if they were they did a lousy job of it. So much for that lefty talking point.

Congratulations to Bob Owens for doing the job American 'reporters' won't do. Let's all hope his excursion into the world of big time journalism hasn't left him scarred and susceptible to a sudden burst of violent behavior we now know journalists are prone to.

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:33 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

An unnamed CNN reporter (CNN doesn't do bylines apparently) did a superficial piece on black women in South Carolina. I read it and didn't think much of it at the time. The premise is that black women voters won't know what to do with themselves with both a black man and a woman on the ballot.

Analysts say black women this year never have been more engaged in a political campaign or held such power in determining the Democratic nominee.

Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

I'm pleased to see that CNN readers reacted immediately. I'm amused to see CNN turn their objections into just another article on the election. And I'm absolutely delighted at the truly objective reporting that CNN decided to use: "CNN readers respond angrily to 'race or gender' story."

CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.

[...]

A reader named Joan e-mailed: "Really CNN, is this how you view black women[?] Are you suggesting that white women are going to have it easier [?] How about issues? Should a black woman consider the candidates position on issues, or should we just stick to race and gender. Disgusting!"

Even a white guy got in on the act, mirroring Stephen Green's comment about John Edwards at the debate last night ("special guest"):

"Since Edwards no longer officially exists, as a white male I face the same choice - either I vote my race (Clinton) or my gender (Obama). Or I could just pick the candidate based on who I think would be best," wrote Michael.

The Democrats are still in eat-your-own-baby mode and will be for the rest of the primary season. It's not surprising that legacy media are aiding and abetting.

Thanks to genghis.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:30 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The March for Life will go on in Washington, D.C. as usual. A couple hundred thousand marchers are expected, including a contingent from my home parish, which sends a dozen or so university and high-school students every year.

Yesterday, 25,000 pro-lifers gathered in San Francisco for the fourth annual West Coast Walk for Life. It was relatively peaceful, with just a few hundred abortion supporters showing up to protest. In keeping with the theme of the day, Dr. Alveda King, neice of Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the marchers:

"We care about life from the womb to the tomb... My uncle said injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Dr. King said that the Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the future of his children for personal comfort and safety. So here we are on behalf of the children, the future generation."

I expect the TV news will be unwatchable today with hourly retrospectives and "what does it all mean" musings from the evening pundits. CNN's online effort, "35 years after Roe: A legacy of law and morality," begins:

Thirty-five years since Roe v. Wade, and little, it seems, has changed.

The January 22, 1973, Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion remains the law of the land, and passions remain high on both sides of the issue, with annual protests on the anniversary. Access to abortion, then and now, is more than just about simple legalities. Social, religious and family values, as well as finances and politics, still play a role in shaping the abortion issue, but many legal and medical experts say the debate has become predictable.

The article downplays the gains that have been made at undoing Roe v. Wade, claiming, "Nor have various legislatures or court rulings restricted access as much as some supporters claim."

That's a pretty hefty gloss on the legal reality. In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, did away with Roe's strained trimester framework, choosing instead to focus on protecting viable fetuses. The Casey Court went even further and held that states could limit pre-viability abortions so long as the limitations do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to decide to abort.

That ruling made it okay for states to require that written, informed consent about the abortion procedure be given to a woman seeking abortion. It allowed states to put in place a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for non-emergency abortions and to narrowly define "emergency." The Court's opinion also noted that requiring that a minor receive parental consent is not an "undue burden." And when abortion advocates wanted to prevent abortion clinics from keeping records and reporting information on their procedures, it allowed such activities where they were "reasonably directed to the preservation of maternal health."

Just this past year, the Court handed down Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban. In a slap to the district court, Justice Kennedy wrote that lower courts were too quick to ignore the state's interest in protecting unborn children, a central premise of the Casey ruling.

It was this case which caused Justice Ginsberg to emotionally read her dissent from the bench. She, contra CNN, thinks that things have changed:

In angry dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone woman on the high court since O'Connor stepped down, called the majority's conclusions "alarming" and said they "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

I think she's a monster for not recognizing what an atrocity it is that abortion has a "centrality to women's lives." Whatever happened to "safe, legal, and rare"?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:11 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Good news: the American Spectator says that Mike Huckabee's campaign is out of money.

Mike Huckabee is asking his senior staff to keep working for him without pay, while lower level campaign staff are seeing their salaries cut dramatically or eliminated altogether.

"The goal is to get a leaner, meaner campaign structure moving into Super Tuesday," says a senior campaign adviser.

But many of those being asked to take the cut are refusing, and walking away, leaving the campaign with holes to fill.

The campaign is trying to save money for national ads leading into Super Tuesday. As I noted last week, Huckabee has discovered that he has little support outside of his evangelical grassroots operation (also known as the ministry phone tree). It takes money to reach people and it looks like he doesn't have any. We'll know more exactly just how much he's got when he makes his Q4 FEC filing at the end of the month.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a front page article on the Huckabee campaign's problems. It sounds like a seriously amateur outfit. Here's a taste:

He was hardly the ideal organizer. Asked what Mr. Henry knew about Michigan, Mr. Saltsman says he knew where it was. Mr. Henry, asked about his experience in organizing events, says, "I was student-body president at my university."

Just 36 hours before Mr. Huckabee landed in Michigan, the campaign had yet to put out his schedule for the trip. Mr. Saltsman huddled in his Myrtle Beach hotel room for a midnight conference call with Mr. Henry, Sarah Huckabee -- the candidate's 25-year-old daughter and national field director -- and Mr. Huckabee's daughter-in-law, Lauren Huckabee.

As they went over the Michigan plans, Mr. Saltsman was prepared for the worst. At the staff meeting earlier that night, Sarah Huckabee had reported that the entire Michigan team had threatened to quit because they were so frustrated at the task ahead.

So, how long after Super Tuesday will Huckabee stick around and who do his followers turn to next?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:10 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.