CNN has hired three new additions this month:

• Bill Bennett
• Former Republican Congressman JC Watts
• Right Wing radio host Glenn Beck

My view: This will hurt CNN in the longrun. First, it will be perceived as a chance to rival Fox News. Second, it will lessen CNN's credibility. CNN, while not the number one cable news network, has until now successfully fostered an image of being neutral, and a network to whom people turn when they want the news, not spin. They risk being perceived as a talk-tv rather than news channel.

John Amato's Crooks and Liars has just hit #8 on Technorati's list of top 100 blogs. More sites link to him than to Michelle Malkin. 5,879 sites have linked to C&L in the past six months.

Congratulations, John.

The husband and wife team who faked finding a finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili were sentenced today to 12 and 9 years, respectively.

I'd bet they'd give up a finger of their own to undo their deed.

The TL kid just forwarded me an e-mail he received.

BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY FLOOD

Crawford, Texas -- A tragic flood this morning destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. The flood began in the presidential bathroom where the books were kept. Both of his books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, as he had almost finished coloring the second one. The White House tried to call FEMA but there was no answer.

Unbelieveable. Literally. Think Progress reports Press Secretary Scott McClellan today said he never heard of the U.S. sending detainees to Syria. When told it had been well-publicized, he asked, "by who, bloggers?"

Are we supposed to believe that McClelland never heard of the lawsuit filed against Attorney General Ashcroft and others over Maher's seizure at JFK, extraordinary rendition to Syria and alleged torture? The Toronto Star reported that the U.S. tried to have the lawsuit dismissed claiming the litigation would jeopardize national security. Here's the Justice Department's brief, filed in the lawsuit. (Via Democracy Now.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will announce his decision on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito at 11:00 am Thursday, from the Georgetown University Law Center. The press is invited. His talk is officially titled "The Alito Nomination, The Supreme Court, And Presidential Power." He's expected to oppose Alito.

Sen. Ted Kennedy will announce his opposition to Alito in a speech tomorrow at 1:30 at the Center for American Progress. (received by e-mail.)

So far, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the only turncoat. But, several Democrats are up in the air, among them, Carl Levin.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, along with Senators Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer and Debbie Stabenow, wrote this letter (html) yesterday to President Bush, asking for "an accounting of Mr. Abramoff’s personal contacts with Bush Administration officials and the official acts that may have been undertaken at his request."

Sen. Dick Durbin introduced a cell phone privacy bill today. From his press release (received by e-mail.)

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today introduced legislation to prohibit the sale, fraudulent transfer or use of cellular telephone records. Durbin's bill would make it illegal to transfer personal information from cell phone companies to online brokers and the legislation provides tough criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison, for those found guilty of violating phone users’ privacy.

“The acquisition and sale of an individual’s personal cell phone call list record is a violation of privacy, and can pose a real threat to personal safety,” Durbin said. “The fraudulent acquisition of records needs to be punishable as a true criminal offense, subject to jail time and fines. The sale and transfer of this information needs to be clearly prohibited by law.”

Update: Newsweek has a new article on the proposed Russian compromise.

**********
Condoleeza Rice, on behalf of the U.S., saying "there's not much to talk about," and France have rejected Iran's request for talks over their nuclear program.

First Post (UK) says the neo-cons are behind the stand-off. Simon Jenkins in the Guardian writes the U.S. has picked a fight it cannot win.

The Supreme Court ruled today in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. (opinion here in pdf). In the opinion, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court made it clear they were not writing new law on abortion. At issue was the New Hampshire parental notification law which the lower court had struck down as unconstitutional.

Rather than decide the issue, the Supreme Court said there were problems with the law and sent it back to the lower courts.

ScotusBlog opines that the decision could be viewed as limiting abortion rights:

If, in fact, that is the way the decision is applied by lower courts in this and other cases, it could amount to a narrowing of abortion rights. That is because it would amount as a legal matter to less reliance upon an individual doctor's professional judgment in individual cases, especially when the abortion option is not considered in a truly emergency situation, but is only deemed medically advisable for a given patient.

by Last Night in Little Rock

The NY Times reports today that, with the GOP leading, both parties in Congress are proposing new ethics rules to limit relations with lobbyists.

Barn door? Damage control?

Update (TL): AmericaBlog reports on the loophole which Atrios says is hilarious. Sean-Paul at Agonist says it's a bad idea for Democrats to get involved in the lobbying reform debate. Firedoglake weighs in.

I echo TChris' sentiments on the Supreme Court's assisted suicide decision yesterday (opinion here).
If you haven't read about the case yet, the Washington Post has an easy to follow report:

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law on physician-assisted suicide yesterday, ruling that the Justice Department may not punish doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives. By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

The case was not about the right to die, per se. The Supreme Court has previously ruled there is no constitutional right to die. States are free to enact their own laws on the issue. Oregon did that, with a law that had been upheld by state and federal courts. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Ashcroft could extend the drug laws to punish doctors who provide lethal drugs to patients who have requested them so they can die on their own terms.

Right to life groups are already promising a pitch to have Congress pass a "John Ashcroft, MD" law...(my term, not theirs):