This is from The Times, courtesy of Luke.

A British-born terror suspect was on the run last night after breaking his control order and evading police by taking shelter in a mosque. The man, aged 26, is thought to have escaped abroad after claiming that he wanted to undertake terror training in Afghanistan.

His disappearance is a further embarrassment for John Reid, the Home Secretary, as he is the third terror suspect under a control order to escape in less than six months. It raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the orders, which were introduced by Government in 2005 and are designed to control and monitor terrorist suspects who can’t be prosecuted or deported from Britain. Opposition MPs last night demanded that the suspect be identified. Currently there is an anonymity order in place and the Government has not applied to overturn it.

The man, who is of Pakistani origin and lives in Manchester, was only placed under the control order this month. But within four days he disappeared. Police sources say that the man failed to show up at a local police station to surrender his passport. He was traced to a nearby mosque, where community leaders say he had sought sanctuary. Police rarely enter a mosque: they began discussions with both local community figures and leading officials connected to the mosque.

It is understood that while these talks were taking place, the young suspect was helped to escape through a back entrance while officers from Greater Manchester Police were stationed outside. This episode will raise questions about how police deal with suspects who take shelter in mosques as senior officers are aware of the sensitivity of entering religious buildings by force.

This is the second case of a terror suspect going missing in the Greater Manchester Police area. A spokesman for the force said that because of the anonymity order imposed on the suspect police could not comment on his escape.

Last night Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism law, said: “It is obviously a matter of concern that a person who is subject to a control order has absconded.”

Police are still searching for two other terror suspects who breached their control orders last year and are still on the run. The two, identified as LL and AD, are understood to have removed their electronic tags before absconding.

David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Far from getting a grip since John Reid took over, the Home Office has been marked by murderers walking out of open prisons and suspected terrorists escaping from control orders. This latest failure demonstrates what we said some time ago. This legislation has achieved the remarkable double of being both repressive and ineffective at the same time.” He demanded that the Home Office name the terror suspect on the run.

It was a mediaeval tradition, no more than that, that a fugitive from the law could seek sanctuary in a church where he would be protected for 40 days after which he had to submit to the King’s law or leave the country. The worthys of the Parish were required to guard the church to ensure that he (or she) did not escape, not a popular task.  The privilege was abused, as one might expect, and was eventually abolished by, I believe, Henry VII.  It does not apply to churches now, and never applied to mosques.

As I know from experience that police officers can be relied upon to treat a church or synagogue with respect, I am sure that they would conduct themselves with the same dignity in a mosque.

And we want the names of these fugitives, and their pictures.

 “Have you seen this man? Do not approach him – telephone 999.”  This anonymity is a complete and utter nonsense.

The Seven Wonders of the World (I always forget the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, don’t you?) are not enough. There are to be Seven New Wonders of the World. Strangely, though, most of these are not exactly new.

A shortlist of 21 has been drawn up:

Acropolis (fair enough)

Alhambra (suppose so)

Pyramid at Chichén Itzá (hmm)

Statue of Christ Redeemer, Rio (maybe)

The Colosseum (yes)

Statues of Easter Island (so-so)

Eiffel Tower (over my dead body)

Great Wall of China (not bad)

Hagia Sophia (in principle no, because it should be a Church)

Kiyomizu Temple, Kyoto (OK)

Kremlin and Red Sqare (perhaps)

Machu Picchu (yes)

Neuschwanstein Castle (no, don’t like it)

Petra (yes)

Pyramids (but the Great Pyramid is in the old list – do they mean the ones that aren’t so great?)

Statue of Liberty (not bad)

Stonehenge (definitely)

Sydney Opera House (why?)

Taj Mahal (yes)

Timbuktu (can’t get excited about Timbuktu, or the Mud Mosque, or Mali in general)

It seems a motley collection. At least they didn’t include the Millennium Dome. You can vote at the site for your seven “new” wonders. Why on earth did they leave out Angkor Wat?

That would certainly get my vote. The BBC, which led me to this story, says of Petra: 

The tourist trade here has been hit hard by recent troubles across the Middle East, devastated even according to many in the trade that I have spoken to.

And whose fault is that?

From The Telegraph

An alleged al-Qa'eda militant is being interviewed in Turkey over the murder of British engineer Ken Bigley, it was reported last night. Syrian Loa'i Mohammed Haj Bakr al-Saqa is being questioned by a Turkish prosecutor in the presence of British police, a diplomat from the British Embassy, interpreters and a lawyer for al-Saqa, Turkish news agency Anatolia reported.

Mr Bigley, from Liverpool, was taken hostage in Baghdad, where he was working, on Sept 16, 2004 and beheaded three weeks later.

British detectives have travelled to Istanbul to carry out inquiries into the murder of Mr Bigley, Scotland Yard confirmed yesterday, but no details of the investigation were given.

In April last year a lawyer for al-Saqa said the body of 62-year-old Mr Bigley was dumped in a ditch near the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Osman Karahan told a press conference in Turkey that his client presided over a mock court which sentenced Mr Bigley to death in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. He did not say whether al-Saqa actually carried out the sentence. Mr Karahan said the ditch where Mr Bigley was buried, at an entrance to the city of Fallujah, was about 50 metres from an insurgent checkpoint on the road from Nuamiya village.

Al-Saqa is currently on trial in relation to a series of terrorist bombings in Istanbul in 2003. Turkish prosecutors have previously called him a "high-level al-Qa'eda official".

Mr Bigley's brother last night welcomed the news that al-Saqa had been questioned. Stan Bigley, from Wigan, Greater Manchester, said: "We were told by the authorities that this was happening and we are hopeful, I can't put it any stronger than that. We are not banking on anything coming out of this but we can only hope that this could help us find Ken's body. We all hope they do find him, especially for my mother's sake.

So says Dinesh D'Souza in his interview with Kathryn Lopez.

Perhaps we should introduce Mr. D'Souza to the musings of the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq at the time of his demise, who called democracy "the big American lie," elaborating (as reported by CNN):  "We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it[.]... Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, ... [and that is] against the rule of God."

Yes, how did we lunatics ever get this crazy idea that Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose a sharia state are against democracy?

WARNING:  Do not read this over lunch.

That is what I'm doing this morning.

State has permitted its very able counsel, John Bellinger, to blog this week on the invaluable international law site, Opinio Juris.  The arrangement is described here,  and Mr. Bellinger has already provided a very comprehensive and substantive explanation of, for example, why the use of force (indeed, the prosecution of war) is appropriate against al Qaeda under international law, and how the administration views the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which got so much attention as a result of last year's Hamdan decision and the subsequent passage of the Military Commissions Act).

Readers may be alarmed — as they should be — by the degree to which modern international law strait-jackets the use of force in self-defense, such that actions that should be commonsense (e.g., making war against an international belligerent capable of projecting power on the scale al Qaeda has) seem to require extensive, factitious justification capable of jumping through numerous legal hoops.  Such are our times, when issues that are not essentially "legal" are nevertheless looked at as if they were legal problems. 

But given that this is the lay of the land, the Opinio Juris posts amply demonstrate that President Bush is not presiding over the cowboy administration of the international media's imagination.  The administration has thoughtful positions — particularly well articulated by Mr. Bellinger — and it would be nice if its officials got out and engaged with critics more often.

"Catholic school student Kimberly Spadero gushed 'we all have the same ideas...even though the rituals in each religion differ...'" -- from this news article

Ignorance and Gush. Sentimentality and Ignorance and Gush. Never to be replaced, apparently, by the facts. Always to be accepted, always to be substituted for the truth.

The usual nonsense that prevents clarity and an intelligent self-defense:

People Are The Same The Whole World Over.

The Family of Men.

We Are All Just Alike Under the Skin.

Bomfoggery, beyond anything offered in "Going My Way."

Here is the MIssion Statement of the Saudi Global Exchange (do visit its website, do find out more about it, do inquire as deeply as you can into its finances, and what's in it for J. Gregory Payne, Ph.D., of Emerson College):

Mission Statement
Founded by Prince Faisal F. Al Saud and Dr. J. Gregory Payne and working with Mohamed Khalil in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, the Saudi Global Exchange (SGE) is committed to advocate for personal, grassroots, public diplomacy in order to promote understanding through communication. The Clinton Global Initiative has praised the SGE, the first grass-roots effort public diplomacy after 9/11.

The SGE provides academics, professionals and citizens-at-large with an opportunity to visit Saudi Arabia and to see the beautiful country and meet its warm, generous people. Participants come from diverse international backgrounds, and over 100 individuals had the opportunity to tour the country.

The SGE sponsors and participates in lectures, various international forums and conferences which afford Exchange alumni opportunities to recount their experiences. Participants also have published international academic research, newspaper articles and media interviews based upon their experiences and insights. Presentation topics have been wide ranging, including globally important matters such as analysis of Saudi-Global relations, media coverage, health communication, sports communication, leadership, negotiation and intercultural and interfaith understanding. SGE events have occurred in major metropolitan centers such as Boston, New York, Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles, Miami, London, Riyadh, Jeddah, Behrain, Paris and Barcelona and at prestigious events such as the National Communication Association Convention and International Academy of Business Disciplines Convention.

The SGE publishes a periodic newsletter, The News Exchange, as well as produces various media products on our activities.

Welcome from Our Co-Founders

Greetings!

Thank you for visiting our site. We are in the process of expanding our organization and our website. Due to the success of the Saudi Global Exchange (formally the Saudi American Exchange) - the first grass roots effort after 9/11 - which has involved over 1000 in our activities, and praise from President Bill Clinton, HRH and U.S. Ambassador Prince Turki from Saudi Arabia, and business, educational and government and non-government leaders worldwide among others, we are evolving into the GLOBAL EXCHANGE. Our mission will remain the same - "Promoting Understanding Through Communication" - but our scope will now be global in the effort to make our world a more humane and peaceful place we all share.

Please check back often as we update the website. We encourage you to read about Clinton Global Iniative project and learn about the historic visit of Sonia "Tita" Puopolo, who was the first family member of a 9/11 victim to visit Saudi Arabia at the Jeddah Economic Forum. Tita was a classmate of co-founder Faisal F. Al Saud and a student of co-founder Dr. J.Gregory Payne at Emerson College in Boston. Our efforts began on 9/11 and will continue to encourage peace and hope for all people. Our future activities include more trips to the Kingdom and activities in Behrain, Dubai, Barcelona and Los Angeles. We are especially proud of our Los Angeles program on media literacy (visit website).

Join us in our efforts! Check back soon for our list of activities for 2006 and beyond.

Regards,

Faisal F. Al Saud
J. Gregory Payne, Ph.D
Co-Founders

Organizational & Political Communication Faculty
J. Gregory Payne
Associate Professor (1983)
B.A., University of Illinois; M.A., University of Illinois; M.P.A., Harvard University; Ph.D., University of Illinois

Dr. Payne is an author, speechwriter and expert on political communication, ethics, and docudrama. His recent research publications include articles on ethics and the mass media, health communication, and political communication. He is the founding Director of the Emerson College Political Media Study Group, and has been the co-director of the Emerson Center on Ethics in Political and Health Communication. He is the author of Tom Bradley: The Impossible Dream, Mayday: Kent State, and the play Kent State: A Requiem. Dr. Payne is on the editorial boards of The Quarterly Journal of Speech, the Journal of Health Communication, and the Southern Speech Journal. He was the guest editor of the 1989, 1993, and 1997 special editions on political campaigns for the American Behavioral Scientist.

Current Courses: (SPRG07)
Code Course Information
OP263 Argument and Advocacy

4.00
Study of the art of advocacy. Students develop the logical, organizational and research skills that debate and other forms of oral and written advocacy require. Assignments include participation in debates about current political and legal controversies. Critical thinking skills are emphasized as tools both for advocates and audiences.
OP626 Crisis Communication

4.00
Students learn about the development of organizational and marketing communication strategies in crisis situations. Using case studies and fieldwork, students focus on the importance of internal communication and media relations during a crisis. Students also investigate preventive strategies that organizations should employ to avoid crises."

Take a look, too, at the busy professor on the telephone with an important client, possibly lending him for a quite reasonable sum his own expert advice on "organizational" this or "critical thinking" that, and of course "Crisis Communication." No doubt some Saudi princeling attended Emerson, and Payne got to know him, and they hit it off, and Payne saw his opportunities, and he took 'em, like Jay Gould.

And who can blame him? Harvard Business School is full of such people, busy packaging platitudes and then selling those platitudes, nicely packaged, on Harvard Business School stationery, to, say, the Government of Kazakhstan,and charging millions and millions for those platitudes. Why shouldn't J. Gregory Payne make a little something, too, even without the grand Harvard name, even at Emerson, a little something from the Saudis, for this splendid "Saudi-American" whatever it is.

And don't look too closely at Saudi textbooks, Saudi courses, Saudi imams on Saudi television, or the Saudi press. Don't talk too closely to American expatriates who have endured Saudi Arabia's primitive culture only because the money was so very good (and the first $75,000 is tax-free, don't forget), or talk to American airman treated as hired help by their Saudi masters, or would-be masters.

No, don't do that. Just think of J. Gregory Payne, and how tough it is to be a well-paid consultant if you are not at one of those "world-class" places with the Title on the Door. We can't all produce some screed in the Riva-Poor or Michael-Porter vein, can we? Nor can we all do that "Getting-to-Yes" stuff of Roger Fisher and his epigones. No, so let's just give the "Saudi-American" project its due, its sinister due.

We all have to make a living, anyway we can.

Don't we?

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday the United States, Britain and Israel were an "axis of evil" trying to drive a wedge between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.--from this news item

It is bizarre for any Iranian to describe non-Muslims, and especially Americans, of attempting to "drive a wedge" between Sunnis and Shi'a. The wedge has existed since the first century of Islam. The doctrine of taqiyya originates in Shi'a Islam as a way for Shi'a to protect themselves from Sunnis. The attacks by Sihaba-e-Sahaba on Shi'a in Pakistan are not prompted by the United States, Britain, or Israel. The miserable status of the Shi'a in Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the United States, Britain, or Israel. Nor the Shi'a fretting under a Sunni ruler in Bahrain. Nor the way in which the Shia have been treated by Sunnis in Lebanon. And it makes no sense to describe the efforts of the Americans in Iraq, which are predicated on the dreamy belief that the split between Sunni and Shi'a can be bridged, and which the Americans have devoted so much time to bridging -- not least by pressuring the Shi'a to put in place an oil-revenue sharing agreement -- one which will not last, for the Shi'a will never share the oil to the extent that is being asked of them, nor should they, given what they have endured at the hands of successive Sunni regimes.

It is bizarre when an Iranian makes such a charge. And if anyone else makes the claim that Bush has caused this "rift" that too is both inaccurate and dangerous. It is inaccurate because the removal of Saddam Hussein did not cause such a rift, or widen a pre-existing one; it only made possible the transfer of power to the Shi'a so that they might dominate, as their numbers now apparently entitle them, Iraq as the Sunnis did before them.

If Edward Luttwak attempted to give credit to Bush for causing this split, then he has misunderstood the depth and duration of the split. And in attributing this split to the Bush policy, anyone who analyzes the matter is showing an indifference or ignorance of the depth and duration of the divide, and furthermore providing ammunition for those who, like the head of the Iranian guards above, wishes to blame the United States.

No doubt there will be more of this nonsense about how swimmingly Sunni and Shi'a got along until those wicked Infidels, through their machinations and manipulations, caused such a split. It's nonsense, whether written by an Iranian guard, or some Sunni politician in Iraq forgetting how the Sunnis treated the Shi'a -- someone like Adnan Pachachi -- or whether suavely asserted by Edward Luttwak.

The British government has an utterly ineffective process, called the "control order," for monitoring potential terrorist aliens who cannot be prosecuted because there is not enough evidence that can be used in court but also cannot be deported because of the UK's absurdly high restrictions against deporting aliens.  Now, for the third time, in less than six months, a terror suspect has escaped.

The self-conscious solicitude of the Western intelligentsia, military and investigative authorities for things Islamic continues to boggle the mind.  Yes, mosques are houses of worship; but there is a lengthy record of their use as centers of jihadist indoctrination, conspiracy, recruitment, para-military training, and even weapons storage and transfer.  In Iraq, Muslims blow up mosques and use them as fortresses for military operations; in England and America, police won't enter them ... even for purposes of apprehending a known terrorist.   

Similarly, at Gitmo, we have terrorists who believe the Koran commands them to murder infidels and who have been known to use Korans to pass notes to one another; yet, each terrorist is issued a Koran at the expense of the taxpayers the terrorists are trying to kill, and our military only allows the book to be handled by Muslim personnel wearing white gloves.  Throughout the Iran/Iraq war, Muslims slaughtered each other with gusto throughout the month of Ramadan; in the West, during a defensive war against jihadists, we are periodically told we should suspend military operations during Ramadan out of respect for Muslims.

It's one thing to refrain from gratuitous offense, but haven't we gone a tad overboard ... like to the point of suicide?

The Australian looks at an aspect of Monday’s Dispatches of particular interest to them.  Following their comments about Sheik Hilali recently, the piece could have been entitled Open Mouth, Insert Trotter.  They concentrate on Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool who is an Australian citizen born in Sydney, has spent the past year living in Lebanon and is described as Sydney’s most influential radical Muslim cleric.

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times

I used to have an angry barber. How’s that for an enticing piece of information? Anyway, every time I went to have a haircut, the man with the scissors was seething.  After a few cuts my barber realised that I worked in politics and kept trying to enlist my help.  All I could do was offer mumbled sympathy at what I hoped were the right places in his polemics. Eventually I found somewhere else to get a haircut.

. . . all those obscure little arguments, all those tit-or-tat arguments between indistinguishable groups that used to seem so boring, are now of first-rate political importance. It really matters whether people understand enough to form a view of their own.

Which brings me to the BBC. Unlike a lot of columnists, I like the BBC. I think its reporting is generally excellent, its news programmes are of high quality and its foreign correspondents are usually both brave and illuminating. Although the corporation can be high-handed in dealing with complaints (the theory that if both sides complain they must be getting something right is absurd) I think its staff does genuinely wish to be politically unbiased.

If only they always knew how. For on Israel, they (not everyone, of course, but too many reporters and too often) sadly get it wrong over and over again. They mistake reporting equal numbers of deaths from both sides with giving people a complete appreciation of the arguments involved. They tell you how, when, who and how many. All this is balanced. As to why, you are often left with a very one-sided view.

Let me provide an eloquent example. One of the biggest stories in the Middle East is the civil disorder in Gaza. Last week on his website, the journalist Stephen Pollard reproduced an internal memo from the BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, to his colleagues. It contained a passage in which Bowen explains “the way that Palestinian society, which used to draw strength from resistance to the occupation, is now fragmenting. The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel’s military activities, land expropriation and settlement building — and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas-led Government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.”

Now this is certainly one explanation of the reason why members of Fatah and Hamas are killing each other. No one can object that this argument is put before the BBC’s audience. But for the BBC’s Middle East editor to believe that it constitutes the sole explanation and to offer it up alone to his colleagues? Now that’s a different matter.

Here are a few alternatives to Bowen’s offering. Some of us argue that instead of the tough Israeli security measures causing Hamas and Fatah militants to kill people and each other, the killing of people by Hamas and Fatah militants causes the tough security measures. Hamas in particular is a dangerous, intolerant, murderous organisation that threatens the lives of innocent people and needs to be resisted.

And what about this? Fatah and Hamas are engaged in a power struggle and an ideological dispute. Fatah claims that its rivals have been plotting to assassinate President Mahmoud Abbas because the President supports the so-called Prisoners’ Document. This document proposes a unified resistance to Israel, but Hamas is suspicious of the terms of such unity and believes that its vague language could mean recognition of Israel.

Or this? In a superb column last week in the Financial Times, Christopher Caldwell pointed out that are there are 67 countries in the world where 15 to 29-year-olds make up more than 30 per cent of the population and 60 of them are undergoing some sort of civil war or mass killing. Gaza has just such a youth bulge. Perhaps the violence has no political cause; it is just, well, boys being boys.

I know, I know. You may regard these alternatives as absurd, even offensive. I don’t, but that’s not my point. If you want to report the Middle East in an unbiased fashion, then these arguments must be put before the BBC audience. And how can they be if the Middle East editor doesn’t even acknowledge them? People rely on the BBC. They can’t just get another hairdresser.

Well, not all of us.  But surveying the density of understanding among the best and brightest drawn to work in Western capitals, one must ask why it so difficult for intelligent people to study the totalitarian threat.   One answer is that to "best and brightest" we must append "and most ambitious," ambition being a perennial distraction (often tied closely with avarice—see Jimmah of the Ummah). 

Another answer is, to take a comment of Hugh's the other night slightly out of context, "Islam is so damned boring!"  

Yes, and it is that banal thing that rules every minute of the waking lives of its most devoted adherents, emptying them of imagination and independent will, replacing these essential qualities with a few dream words uttered by an illiterate tribesman 1,400 years ago in the arid wastes of Arabia, offering a way of thinking, a way of living, so unappealing to the alert that it wisely wields a sword when it enters your house to convince you to join.   But don't take my word for it, examine the eyes of the true believers, if you dare.  Is there life in them or is there not?  Is there intelligence left there or is there not?

It behooves the intelligent among us to follow Hugh's (and other's) lead and study the thing lest the time comes when one day we look in the mirror and see the wrong eyes staring back. 

If you're not reading Charles Murray's three-decker in Opinion Journal this week, you should be.

In Part Two, today, Charles says out loud and clear what a great many of us believe:  That four-year colleges are suitable for only a fraction of the people who actually attend them.

"Combine those who are unqualified with those who are qualified but not interested, and some large proportion of students on today's college campuses—probably a majority of them—are looking for something that the four-year college was not designed to provide."

He points out the rewards for, and rising demand for, craftsmen of all sorts.

"The spread of wealth at the top of American society has created an explosive increase in the demand for craftsmen. Finding a good lawyer or physician is easy. Finding a good carpenter, painter, electrician, plumber, glazier, mason—the list goes on and on—is difficult, and it is a seller's market. Journeymen craftsmen routinely make incomes in the top half of the income distribution while master craftsmen can make six figures. They have work even in a soft economy. Their jobs cannot be outsourced to India. And the craftsman's job provides wonderful intrinsic rewards that come from mastery of a challenging skill that produces tangible results. How many white-collar jobs provide nearly as much satisfaction?"

I have craftsmen working on my house right now, building us a sunroom.  They are skillful, thoughtful, cheerful, and obviously enjoy what they are doing, even in this biting cold weather.  (They have taught me something this afternoon.  I never knew about the difference between a jack stud and a king stud.  No off-color jokes, Mary, please.)  We are paying them an arm and a leg, of course—no wonder they're so cheerful.

And me, I can't wait to get started on my next household project—building my wife a walk-in closet.  Just as soon as I get ahead on all this damn reading and writing stuff.

Cognitive elite?  Fugeddaboutit.  I wish I'd trained as an electrician.

[Me, writing about Nevil Shute]  Shute ... was a great English conservative—a champion of free enterprise, free inquiry, science, and permanent values.  One of England's finest, sadly forgotten nowadays.

[A reader]  Derb—-What, in your opinion, constitute permanent values?

[Me, replying]  Well, first and foremost, there is the value of keeping a stiff upper lip in all circumstances.  The rest are pretty secondary. 

From a frequent correspondent, a gentleman of the cloth (whom I have disguised heavily here): 

"Mr Derbyshire—-I hold a B.S. in [advanced technical field] and worked for several years as a [specialist in that field].  I've been [hobbying or working in that field] since I was 12. I've spent [X] of the past [Y] years in seminaries [5<=X<=Y<=15]. I am now a [minister of Christian denomination] who works half-time as a [specialist in aforementioned technical field].

"It'll be a while before I can be full-time at the church.  [Technical field] as a profession now stinks ... due to the continuous importation of people who are willing to do the job for less. (That, and employers of technical people seem completely unable to place any value on experience, preferring instead to use junior people that utterly lack any perspective beyond today's 'hot' tools.)

"I've been considering taking up electrician work myself, seeing as I have a solid understanding of the principles (thanks to [technical specialty] school) ....  You're giving me more motivation....."

[Derb]  What, not a... carpenter?

I have a friend who always tells the same joke every time he has to catch a plane: "I have a special deal with the airlines, if I'm late for my flight, they leave my a**." Unfortunately for Northwest Airlines as the late Ayatollah Khomeini said, "There is no humor in Islam."

Washington Times: An Islamic civil rights group is calling for an investigation to determine why 40 Muslims were not allowed to board a flight from Germany to Detroit after their pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
    Northwest Airlines officials said the passengers arrived too late to catch the flight, but some of the Muslims, appearing at a press conference yesterday with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), called it religious discrimination.
    The Muslims arrived at the Frankfurt airport at 7:30 a.m. Jan. 7 on a charter plane from Saudi Arabia. They did not show up at the ticket counter until about 20 minutes before the Detroit-bound Flight 51 left at 10:20 a.m., said Dean Breest, a Northwest Airlines spokesman.
    The airline industry and governmental agencies have check-in and boarding deadlines to help ensure on-time departures, and Northwest Airlines policy states that passengers must check in for international flights at least 60 minutes before departure and be aboard the aircraft at least 30 minutes before departure.

And you can bet your sweet bippy there's a lawsuit in Northwest's future.

A reader:

"Derb—-You write: 'Well, first and foremost, there is the value of keeping a stiff upper lip in all circumstances.  The rest are pretty secondary.'  Well put.  '...but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.'"

[Derb]  Hey.  I'll confess, I had to look it up.  It's Matthew 24:13.  See?  It's true what they told us back in the old country:  God is an Englishman.

In lambasting the Bush administration for politicizing the appointment of the nation’s United States attorneys, Democrats may be on the verge of redefining chutzpah.

The campaign is being spearheaded on the Judiciary Committee by Senator Dianne Feinstein. She contends that at least seven U.S. attorneys — tellingly, including those for two districts in her home state — have been “forced to resign without cause.” They are, she further alleges, to be replaced by Bush appointees who will be able to avoid Senate confirmation thanks to a “little known provision” of the Patriot Act reauthorization law enacted in 2006.

Going into overdrive, Feinstein railed on the Senate floor Tuesday that “[t]he public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988 has said, ‘This is like nothing I’ve ever seen in my 35-plus years.’”

Yes, the public, surely, is about as “shocked, shocked” as Claude Raines’s Captain Renault, and one is left to wonder whether Mr. Nunez spent the 1990s living under a rock.

One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party’s own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats).

We like to think that law enforcement is not political, and for the most part — the day-to-day part, the proceedings in hundreds of courtrooms throughout the country — that is true. But appointments are, and have always been political. Does it mean able people are relieved before their terms are up? Yes, but that is the way the game is played.

Indeed, a moment’s reflection on the terms served by U.S. attorneys reveals the emptiness of Feinstein’s argument. These officials are appointed for four years, with the understanding that they serve at the pleasure of the president, who can remove them for any reason or no reason. George W. Bush, of course, has been president for six years. That means every presently serving U.S. attorney in this country has been appointed or reappointed by this president.

That is, contrary to Clinton, who unceremoniously cashiered virtually all Reagan and Bush 41 appointees, the current President Bush can only, at this point, be firing his own appointees. Several of them, perhaps even all of them, are no doubt highly competent. But it is a lot less unsavory, at least at first blush, for a president to be rethinking his own choices than to be muscling out another administration’s choices in an act of unvarnished partisanship.

Feinstein’s other complaint, namely, that the Bush administration is end-running the Constitution’s appointment process, which requires Senate confirmation for officers of the United States (including U.S. attorneys), is also unpersuasive...

the rest is here