Glenn Greenwald again:

The defining beliefs of this [New Republic capitulation] Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly.

[MORE]

Comedian George Carlin has died of heart failure at age 71. Here he is talking about death.

The New York Times wrote this extensive profile of him in 2004. Ann Althouse has an extensive group of clips and thoughts. The Nation has more, including his political views. Huffington Post has this interview with Carlin in March on blogs and political tv news. He told Tim Russet in 2004 he hadn't voted since McGovern.

Update: More history from the AP here.

R.I.P. George Carlin.

NYTimes:

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

I do not write this as a rebuke, but as a reality check. Pols are pols and do what they do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Manhattan's District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, took some heat in an election contest for apparently prosecuting the wrong men for the 1990 shooting of a bouncer outside the Palladium nightclub. He asssigned Daniel Bibb to reexamine the case. Bibb reported that "the two imprisoned men were not guilty, and that their convictions should be dropped." Yet Bibb was told to defend their convictions in the face of strong evidence that the men were innocent. Was Morgenthau unwilling to concede a serious mistake for fear that voters might punish him?

Remarkably, Bibb admits that he defied his bosses and threw the case when the defendants asked for a new trial.

He tracked down hard-to-find or reluctant witnesses who pointed to other suspects and prepared them to testify for the defense. He talked strategy with defense lawyers. And when they veered from his coaching, he cornered them in the hallway and corrected them. “I did the best I could,” he said. “To lose.”

Bibb got his wish, and both men are free today. Bibb resigned in 2006. [more ...]

Is Bob Barr the new Ralph Nader?

A fiery former GOP congressman who gained national prominence for doggedly pursuing impeachment of President Clinton has some Republicans worried he'll play spoiler in a tight presidential contest.

Bob Barr's Libertarian Party bid for the White House is the longest of long shots, but political experts say he may be able to exploit the unease some die-hard conservatives still feel about Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting. Combined with the surge in turnout among Democrats during the primaries and a difficult political climate for Republicans, they see what could be a recipe for trouble for the GOP.

"Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008," said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain's 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year's contest.

George Bush is the greater spoiler for Republicans in 2008, but any damage Barr can do to the Republican cause is welcome. Here are some memorable Barr moments, in addition to leading the impeachment fight:

This link will direct you to a nice piece of writing by Chris Floyd on Torturegate.

By week's end, the evidence that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other top government officials had deliberately created a system of torture which they knew was illegal – indeed, a capital crime – under U.S. law was so plain, so overwhelming, and so handily concentrated that it broke through the levees of institutional cover-up and media complicity that had held this clear truth at bay for so long. The grim facts had finally worked their way into "conventional wisdom." It was now permissible for good "centrist" folk to speak of such things, even condemn them, without being automatically relegated to ranks of "the haters," the "unserious," the "shrill partisans," etc.

Floyd warns against a "line of defense ... that would allow the purveyors of conventional wisdom to vent a bit of righteous outrage at official wrongdoing without actually having to do anything about it or admitting of any flaws in their fundamentalist doctrine of American exceptionalism." He adds that Barack Obama "has given every indication he too sees the Administration's high crimes as "dumb policies" that don't require any legal redress." The whole piece is worth a read.

What do you think about Google bombing John McCain?

A political blogger is using a technique known as "Google bombing" to enlist the aid of fellow partisan bloggers to boost the search engine rankings of nine news stories that reflect poorly on Republican presidential candidate John McCain. ... The articles [Chris] Bowers is using range from a story about McCain voting to filibuster a minimum wage hike to an item about the Senate passing an expanded GI bill despite opposition from McCain.

Bowers on the ethics of Google bombing:

Richard Epstein does not often write things I agree with but he did today about the Boumediene decision, where he echoes my consistent critique of the DC district court and DC circuit court decisions:

Enemy prisoners of war are never granted [habeas], either in the United States or abroad. What matters is whether a prisoner is or is not an enemy combatant. The defendants in Eisentrager, German war criminals, admitted being enemy combatants. The six plaintiffs in Boumediene, accused of plotting an attack on the American Embassy in Bosnia, claim they are not. They should be entitled to challenge both the government’s definition of an enemy combatant and the factual basis of their arrest. And they should be able to do so, as the court stressed, under standard habeas corpus procedures that allow them to present evidence and confront witnesses, and not under the paltry procedures outlined by the 2006 Military Commissions Act.

(Emphasis supplied.) Precisely.

Can you imagine spending a quarter century in prison for crimes you didn't commit?

DNA testing last year showed Steven Phillips was innocent of a 1982 sexual assault and burglary. In January, additional testing found that DNA evidence from the rape matched another man, Sidney Alvin Goodyear, who died in prison about a dozen years ago.

Can you imagine, after being convicted despite your innocence, having to decide whether to maintain your innocence on related crimes, a stance likely to result in life imprisonment, or to plead guilty just for the chance to die outside of prison walls? [more ...]

I'm out for the afternoon.

If you're stuck at work or staying inside to avoid high temperatures -- or any other reason -- here's a place to chat.

A former police chief who was convicted of murdering his ex-wife has been spared the death penalty.

After listening to the wishes of the victim’s family, Northumberland County District Attorney Tony Rosini withdrew his plan to seek the death penalty and recommended the defendant receive life imprisonment without parole for murdering his ex-wife.

It's always heartening to see a murder victim's family choose to set aside the natural desire for "life for a life" vengeance and to accept confinement as an appropriate punishment.

Glenn Greenwald catches Time magazine presenting some of its typical bad reporting:

A compromise deal to extend the federal government's domestic spying powers . . . has drawn attacks from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is unhappy at concessions made to protect civil liberties; the left is furious that the Democrats allowed the domestic spying powers to be extended in any form.

It must be a decent and reasonable compromise if both the extremes on the Right and Left are angry about it -- except the whole premise is patently false. The Right isn't attacking the bill at all; they're ecstatic about it.

(Emphasis supplied.) Which brings me to John Cole's odd post equating FISA to a poker hand: