The good news is that Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine announced he will conduct an investigation into how the Justice Department used the information it received from Bush's warrantless, NSA electronic surveillance program. He has also mangaged to get security clearances for his investigators. The bad news is it "won't address whether the controversial program is an unconstitutional expansion of presidential power, as its critics and a federal judge in Detroit have charged."

The ACLU reports:

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s Inspector General, said that his office has "decided to open a program review that will examine the Department’s controls and use of information related to the program and the Department’s compliance with legal requirements governing the program."

Again, it's not enough. It won't address the legality of the program. As the ACLU points out:

Kevin Drum adopts a straw man:

CENTRISM....Yes, centrism can be a tic. Yes, it's often favored by DC pundits who automatically assume that bipartisanship is an inherent good regardless of its outcome. Yes, it can sometimes be a substitute for real thought. That said, I hope the liberal blogosphere doesn't get into the habit of automatically trashing centrist positions simply out of pique against some of centrism's more annoying practitioners. After all, trying to govern solely via populist intuition won't work any better than relying on a bunch of blue ribbon commissions.

Centrism is not a tic - it is a myth. A myth with political benefits. I am a centrist I proclaim and have for years.

I tell you who is not a centrist - John McCain, Joe Lieberman, David Broder, Joe Klien, et al. These are Republicans and Republican apologists.

I wish Kevin would not buy into these things. He is a sharp guy with a centrist reputation and can help us on this. I bet I agree with Kevin on issues as much as I agree with any other blogger. I really believe that. The differences between us are stylistic not substantive. And also I am much more critical of self-styled Centrists than he is.

I have no use for Jim Wallis and I begin to wonder if he really has the interests of Democrats and progressives at heart:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Anyone who does not see the moral value in civil rights and liberties is not moral in my book. If Wallis does not share our Democratic values, if he prefers the imposition of his personal religious values on the country, instead of finding common ground with those who do not share his views, then he should be looking for a new party. We will not change our deeply held and cherished values, our love of the Constitution, for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Jim Wallis. It's great that he is for a progressive economic agenda but that does not mean Dems will accept his recalcitrant views on social issues.

Moreover, he is advocating stupid politics. Dems finally put the extremist label on the GOP because it is beholden to the Radical Religious Right. Wallis would throw that away. Do not listen to him Democrats. Ever. He does not believe in what we believe in. He does not even know what we believe in. He is a fool.

I'm a soft-touch for college kids who start serious blogs. I've been reading Matthew Yglesias since he was at Harvard and Ezra Klein since he was at USC. Both have developed into excellent professional writers.

So when I got an e-mail today to check out the new Foreign Policy Watch Blog, described as "Diplomatic strategy, international news, and thoughtful political analysis" written by a 19 year old freshman at Brown University, Jeb Koogler, I took a look. From the blogroll, he leans left. And like Matt and Ezra, Jeb writes intelligently about serious stuff. I hope you'll check him out.

A necessary and fascinating debate is now beginning to emerge in the Left blogs about the role of populism in politics and governance. Max Sawicky, Matt Yglesias and atrios have interesting thoughts on this. But I really like Stirling Newberry's take:

Populism is the easiest to make the case for, we would all like to believe that what we do is for "the people". But history . . . shows - it is far from easy to separate out what is good for "the people" from what is good for "my people", who are not "your people". . . The reason for this is that populism desires, even demands, that actions taken be consonant with the emotional logic of the public at large. . . .

Will the president criticize his war allies for exploring the cut-and-run option?

Britain said Monday it expects to withdraw thousands of its 7,000 military personnel from Iraq by the end of next year, while Poland and Italy announced the impending withdrawal of their remaining troops.

Bob Kearns is president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. The enormous power he wields seems to have gone to his head.

Lisa Jensen put a Christmas wreath on her condo door. The wreath features a peace sign, although Kearns claims that some residents believe it to be a symbol of Satan. Whether those residents are of sound mental health is unclear, but the three or four resident complaints prompted Kearns to warn Jensen that the association "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive." He plans to assess a daily fine of $25 if she continues to display the wreath. Peace, it seems, is a divisive issue in Pagosa Springs.

The association prohibits residents from posting "signs, billboards or advertising" without approval of the architecural control committee. When the five committee members concluded that the rule didn't apply to Jensen's wreath, Kearns fired all five of them. Merry Christmas.

Yesterday I wrote about Sean Bell, the 23 year old who was gunned down Saturday night in a hail of gunfire by New York cops, hours before his Sunday wedding.

Today's New York Times has another article on the shooting, with one officer suggesting the phenomenon of "contagious shooting" took over:

The whole thing most likely took less than a minute. The officer who fired 31 times could have done so in fewer than 20 seconds, with the act of reloading taking less than one second, Mr. Cerar said. The 49 shots that followed the undercover detective’s first may have been contagious shooting, said one former police official who insisted on anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

“He shoots, and you shoot, and the assumption is he has a good reason for shooting. You saw it in Diallo. You see it in a lot of shootings,” the official said. “You just chime in. I don’t mean the term loosely. But you see your partner, and your reflexes take over.”

Turns out, this is not a novel theory.

Via TPM, Brent Wilkes, the multi-millionaire defense contractor whom former Congressman Randy Cunningham named as one of those who bribed him, has added firepower to his legal team by hiring former Scott Peterson defender Mark Geragos. Wilkes is represented in D.C. by Nancy Luque.

Here's a long NYT profile of Wilkes in which he opened up to the paper.

Mr. Wilkes acknowledged that he was a willing participant in what he characterized as a “cutthroat” system in which campaign contributions were a prerequisite for federal contracts. “I attempted to get help and advice from people who could show me the way to do it right,” Mr. Wilkes said. “I played by their rules, and I played to win.”

Mr. Wilkes said he was speaking now to rebut false assertions about him by prosecutors and the news media. While it is unknown whether his account is complete and it is impossible to verify his recollections of certain conversations, many aspects of his story were confirmed by federal records, other documents and interviews with people involved in the events he described.

LEAP, a group of former law enforcement officers opposed to the war on drugs, visits Great Britain this week. Simon Jenkins, writing for the Sunday Timesonline (UK) argues against prohibition and for licensing. He outlines the failure of the war on drugs.

Most drug users can handle the harm it undoubtedly does them personally. To this extent there is no justification for the state interfering in a private activity. As with the control of alcohol, the regulation of outlets should be required only to protect minors, prevent adulteration and collect taxes. Other European countries are moving in this direction, at least with ecstasy, cannabis and heroin.

The Timesonline (UK) has a feature article on Barak Obama:

Obama will appear on Friday at the Saddleback church in Lake Forest, California, where at least 20,000 conservative Christians gather each week for services led by Pastor Rick Warren, the evangelical author of the bestselling inspirational book The Purpose Driven Life.

At first glance Warren and Obama appear the unlikeliest of allies — the conservative white preacher and the liberal black Democrat — yet aides to both confirmed last week that they have formed an intriguing friendship that may prove a key element in the next presidential campaign.

Bible-thumping didn't get Harold Ford elected. Can it help Obama?

Sean Bell, age 23, was shot and killed by police in a hail of bullets last night as he was leaving his bachelor party in Queens, just hours before his wedding.

Sean and his bride-to-be, 22 year old Nicole Paultre, had been together for several years and are the parents of two children, a three year old and a five year old.

More than 50 rounds were fired at the car he was driving. Sean was shot in the shoulder, neck and right arm. Two other young men were wounded.