An inconvenient Nobel

Inconvenient particularly for the Climate Deniers but also for those who still have a candle lit for a Gore presidency. Two pieces of advice for both parties:

1. Yes, the polar ice is all melted, the polar bears are drowning, we're never going to drill in the ANWR, and you need to re-think that fourth SUV for your kid and those CFLs.

2. It ain't happenin', dreamer. Free your mind and pick one of the candidates who's running (and be happy with your choice).

Congratulations, Mr. Gore.

Sharon Killer's Justice

"Judge Keller's actions denied Michael Richard two constitutional rights, access to the courts and due process, which led to his execution," the complaint states. "Her actions also brought the integrity of the Texas judiciary and of her court into disrepute ... "

Judge Sharon Killer's interpretation of 'justice for all' closes at 5 p.m.

"Justice should be both fair and competent. Here it was not. The result is a man was killed on a day he should have lived," said Chuck Herring, an Austin lawyer who joined in the complaint and who has written on professional ethics and responsibility.

Judge Sharon Killer, who was narrowly re-elected in 2006 over an opponent who barely fielded a challenge, has a longstanding reputation for sending Texans to their death under questionable circumstances.

Judge Sharon Keller, landlord to a Dallas titty bar which has had more than its share of police calls and neighborhood complaints, disagreed with most of her colleagues that a woman whose children burned to death in a accidental fire wasn't criminally responsible.

Keller's killing has failed to draw any response from Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, and two previous attorneys general -- Mark White and Jim Mattox -- have criticized him for his silence.

Sharon "Killer" Keller is way beyond the cartoon conceptions of hanging-tree, Judge Roy Bean, cinematic Texas justice. She is an abomination and a disgrace to the bench, and should resign or be removed from it.

Potential third party candidates Paul and Tancredo

Yesterday's GOP debate (a good wrap-up is here) produced only one surprise: the emergence of a couple of possible challengers to the eventual Republican nominee. Via MyDD, First Read observes that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo said they might not go along:

Paul and Tancredo said they would not necessarily support the GOP nominee. That is interesting. Does this feeling persist within the Republican Party? Is that bad news for Giuliani? Maybe. Maybe not. Brownback, the "values candidate" said no matter what he would support the nominee -- however grudgingly.

I heard Ron Paul specifically dismiss the possibility of running as a Libertarian in 2008, just last week on the Ed Schultz Show. My own speculation regarding third party challenges is here. Continuing:

... there was the waffling by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo at the GOP debate about whether they'd support the eventual GOP nominee. Remember, it wouldn't take more than a percentage or two in some states for a third party candidate like Paul or Tancredo to cost the GOP a whole bunch of Bush '04 states out West.

There's also potential for the Christian conservatives to peel off and find a candidate, possibly *choking back maniacal laughter* Rick Santorum.

It appears that the GOP nationally is in the early stages of a major meltdown. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Let's stop Bush's warrantless wiretapping

While I have my outrage on this morning:

I am one of the 73% of Americans who oppose George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

I am outraged that George Bush admits he broke the FISA law at least 30 times by authorizing activities that were illegal -- and I am outraged Congress has not impeached Bush for doing so.

I am outraged that the Bush Administration has lied about its illegal activities for years, especially former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' perjury before Congress -- and I am outraged Gonzales has not been prosecuted for doing so.

I am outraged that George Bush used a false terrorist threat in August to terrorize Congress into legalizing his illegal wiretapping -- and I am outraged Congress has not impeached Bush for doing so.

I am outraged that nearly every Republican and a few dozen Democrats voted for Bush's wiretapping bill.

I therefore demand the following:

(1) Immediate repeal of the "Protect America Act of 2007" enacted in August, or at bare minimum allowing it to expire in January.

(2) Defeat of any further legislation to legalize warrantless wiretapping or give immunity to telephone companies or Bush Administration officials who participated in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens

(3) Prosecution of Alberto Gonzales for lying to Congress when he testified that there was no "serious disagreement" inside the Justice Department over the illegal program, even though then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and his top aides dramatically threatened to resign over the program.

(4) Impeachment of George Bush for violating the Fourth Amendment and FISA over 30 times and for falsely terrorizing Congress into passing the Protect America Act.

(5) Criminal prosecution of Bush, Gonzales, and everyone else who committed these crimes.

Care to join me?