ARS TECHNICA

Coffee drinkers rejoice: your liver and skin thank you

By John Timmer
| Published: August 01, 2007 – 05:20PM CT

We tend to view habits that are referred to as addictions as
necessarily bad things. In recent years, however, there has been good
news for those who consider themselves hooked on things like red wine,
green tea and chocolate: these complex substances appear to contain
some chemicals that actually enhance human health. Two recent
publications suggest that we may be able to add coffee to that list.

The first comes from the June issue of Hepatology,
a journal devoted to the study of the liver. Some researchers
(primarily from espresso-mad Italy) performed a meta-analysis of
studies that tracked liver cancer, the third most common cause of
cancer deaths globally, and pulled out data related to coffee
consumption. Overall, this happy addiction appeared to correlate with a
41 percent reduction in the risk for cancer.

The benefit held up well across a variety of studies, including both
case-controlled and cohort designs. It also persisted across geographic
regions, with the frequent drinkers of Southern Europe and the rare
sippers in Japan seeing a protective effect. There was also a dose
effect, with heavy drinkers seeing even more protection, and
consumption even benefitted those with signs of liver damage, which is
often a precursor to cancers of the organ. It was one of the more
convincing data sets I’ve seen in this sort of analysis.

At PNAS, a study
skipped the coffee, and headed straight for putting caffeine in the
drinking water of some mice. Nevertheless, they suggested that the mice
dosed themselves in a manner typical of us humans: “The plasma
concentration of caffeine in mice ingesting caffeine (0.1–0.4
mg/ml drinking water) is similar to that in the plasma of most coffee
drinkers (one to four cups per day).” This caffeine was coupled with
the mouse equivalent of a voluntary exercise program, which involved
placing a running wheel in the cage.

The researchers looked at how the combination of exercise and
caffeine affected a potential path to cancer, the response of cells to
ultraviolet light exposure (something that often accompanies exercise).
Cells exposed to UV have two choices: suffer the damage, or commit an
organized form of cell suicide called apoptosis. It’s thought that the
apoptotic response prevents cancer by killing off anything that may
have picked up DNA damage, and hence a propensity to cancerous growth.

Either the exercise or caffeine alone caused a slight uptick in the
number of cells undergoing apoptosis following UV exposure. Combining
the two, however, caused a far more dramatic increase, over 400 percent
compared to the sedentary, uncaffeinated controls. This was more than
simply adding the two separate effects, suggesting that caffeine and
exercise acted synergistically. As an added benefit, the subdermal fat
layer in the mice shrank dramatically in these animals. These results
suggest that making caffeine part of your exercise program may give it
an extra boost, and help limit the damage caused by any of the exercise
you pursue outdoors.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Yankee Stadium primer

On the eve of the Yankees’ first home game of the season, NewYorkology
contributor Scott Ross offers up a Bronx Bomber guide to everything you
need to know about buying tickets, how to get there, where to sit and
what to eat. Ross is the East Coast editor of Sploid.

The Stadium
In the decade preceding the arrival of Babe Ruth, the Yankees were a
so-so team. Their performance at the gate reflected their play on the
field, as average attendance at the Polo Grounds was only about 5,000.
With the addition of Ruth the Yankees in 1920 started winning and
immediately their attendance tripled. The influx of cash from gate
receipts allowed team owner Jacob Rupert to put up the money for “The
House That Ruth Built,” as the stadium came to be known.

Yankee Stadium opened on April 18, 1923. That season the Bronx Bombers
captured their first World Series title. Since then, the stadium has
been home to an additional 25 championships, more than any other team
in pro sports.

With the announcement in June 2005 of a new Yankee Stadium slated to
open in April 2009, there are now less than 250 more opportunities (not
including the playoffs) to see a game there. If you haven’t seen this
historic coliseum, get on it.

How to Buy Tickets
Tickets are available online at the Yankees official website or through Ticketmaster. You can print your own tickets off the Internet, so you needn’t fall victim to the capricious ways of the U.S. Postal Service.

You can also visit one of the Yankee Clubhouse Stores
around the city. Don’t bother getting your tickets through the
Clubhouses in an effort to avoid the Ticketmaster surcharge, they still
get you. … Yeah, I don’t get it either.

You can buy tickets at the ballpark, but it’s in your best interest to
get them before you head up there. You’d be wise to call and check
availability before making the trek up there ticketless.

Of course you can always buy tickets from scalpers, but you do so at your own risk.

Where to Sit
Ticket prices range from $12 for the bleachers to $115 for “Field
Championship” seats, what dad used to call “box seats.” All the really
pricey tickets for 2006 are sold out; the most expensive section still
on sale is “Main Box” for $52.

I typically sit in the upper-deck behind home plate (Tier Reserved,
between Sections 7 and 8). The tickets are cheap, $18-$20, usually
available and you can see the whole field. The more expensive the
ticket, the harder it is to come by, so you need to decide what’s important to you.

If your priority is not having your child surrounded by blood-hungry
drunks, let me suggest the bleachers or Tier Reserved sections 13 &
14, where the sale of alcohol is forbidden.

There’s no escaping the thunderously loud P.A., though I find it particularly bad in the upper decks.

How to Get to Yankee Stadium
Subway – Yankee Stadium is easily reached by taking the 4 train if you’re coming from the East Side or the D
train up the West Side. Both trains let you off at the 161st Street
station. (Be advised the 4 train will not be crossing between Brooklyn
and Manhattan on weekends until the fall of 2006.)

Car – If you just have to drive, the Stadium is at exit 4 off of Route 87 (aka, The Major Degan). There are parking lots, but isn’t going to a game expensive enough? And getting out of there after a game can be a nightmare. In “A Pitcher’s Story,”
Roger Angel tells of how the police allow Yankee P.A. announcer Bob
Shepherd to make an illegal left turn that cuts 30 to 45 minutes off
his drive. You are not Bob Shepherd.

Ferry – NY Waterway’s Yankee Clipper
costs $18 roundtrip and makes several Manhattan stops. The trip takes
about an hour and a half and leaves you about a 7-10 minute walk from
the Stadium. Really, what’s more magical than a cruise along the East
River?

Riding the Yankee Clipper from Pier 11 (near South and Wall streets)
takes considerably longer and is more expensive than the train, but
it’s not without its merits. The chief advantages of the ferry are the
full bar and the comfort, with the later truly becoming an issue on the
ride home. Rather than jostling with 50,000 other hot, tired fans on
the dank, sweaty subway platform and trains, you’ve got plenty of fresh
air and seating as you float down the East River. It’s a far more
civilized way to travel.

Where to Meet
Mercifully, we all have cell phones now, so finding one another is far
easier, but you still need a location. Everybody who doesn’t know the
area meets at The Bat. As you get off the subway and walk west along
161st, you’ll see a giant bat, maybe 30 feet high, surrounded by a
couple hundred people looking as lost and confused as you.

Before the Game
Unless you’re sitting in the bleachers, your ticket also allows you to
take a walk through Monument Park in centerfield, where the team pays
tribute to its former greats. The park is located by Section 36 and is
open from two hours before game time to 45 minutes before game time.
It’s pretty cool; check it out if you have time.

If you’d rather grab a beer or a nosh beforehand, there is no shortage
of bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, all of them teeming with
fans.

Getting Into the Stadium
The gates open two hours before first pitch and you’re permitted to
seek autographs until the end of batting practice. Give yourself a
minimum of thirty minutes to get through security, buy a hot dog and
find your seat.

Before you get into the park, you will be subject to a search,
typically a cursory patting down. Be prepared to turn your cell phone
on, take off your hat or open your purse.

Outside food is permitted, though cans and bottles are not. If
you’re carrying anything in an opaque bag, you may be asked to
transfer your belongings into a clear one provided to you by security.

Any bag larger than a purse (this is a purely subjective determination
made by the security guard taking into account your gender, demeanor
and bra size) will not be permitted (diaper bags are OK).

You can check your bag for $5 at many of the bars across River Avenue.
The lines move pretty quickly and I’ve never heard of anybody
losing anything, but there are no guarantees, so if you can avoid it,
don’t bring a bag.

What to Eat
The Stadium has your standard ballpark fare; vendors troll the aisles
with beer, dogs, peanuts, soda, popcorn, Cracker Jack, ice cream. …
If you want pizza, fries, nachos or a sandwich, you have to walk quite
a ways and wait in a long line; you’re looking at a minimum of 30
minutes, more likely 45.

Miscellanea
If you feel compelled to wear your Red Sox hat, be ready for catcalls
and mockery, but don’t take the bait. You can’t win.

There are only four ATMs in the whole ballpark, so you’d be advised to get money in advance.

Listen for the mellifluous sounds of Bob Shepherd on the P.A. I’m
holding onto the hope that someone will have the good sense to record
Shepherd pronouncing every syllable in the world so we can create a
Shepherd see-and-say, and hear him for all eternity. The sound of that
man saying “Shigetoshi Hasegawa” makes my knees weak.

Watch out for Freddie, the crazy old guy with a sign that reads “Freddy Sez …”
The man has been trolling the aisles of the stadium forever, carrying
his sign and offering people the chance to clang his bell with a spoon.
If you get close enough, ring the bell, have your picture taken with
him and be sure to ask for a copy of his newsletter. Bad jokes,
recipes, ads. … It’s incredible. A stapled mess of photocopies,
it may be the original zine.

Listen for the chant at the start of every game that rains down from
the bleachers. In the top of the first inning the fans in the bleachers
chant the name of each player on the field and clap (Der-RICK! Je-TER!
… clap … clap … clap-clap-clap) until the player acknowledges
them with a tip of the cap.

Whether you’re visiting from Smithtown or Boston or Manhattan,
Kansas, the idea of spending the day in the South Bronx can sound
daunting. Do not be afraid. The neighborhood is completely safe.
Don’t think twice about heading up early for a beer or to take
the tour of Monument Park.

Corrected: This entry was modified after a commenter pointed out that
the phrase “(i)n hours leading up to the game and for about an hour
after, the neighborhood is perfectly safe” made it seem the Bronx may
be perpetually burning when not under the soothing spell of a Yankees’
game. Writer Scott Ross concurs with the commenter and the phrase has
been deleted.

Update: Writer Scott Ross took a mid-season trip on the Yankee Clipper
and provided more details on the sail for the entry above. Also, this
new info on security changes: After 9/11, security at Yankee Stadium
was cranked up quite a bit. In the wake of the terror plot uncovered in
London last week (Aug. 10, 2006,) the Yankees have again raised the
bar. As always, the Yankees remain one of the few — if not only —
ballparks that graciously allows outside food and drink, however you
now must take a sip of any liquid before it’ll be permitted. As a
friend noted, this new protocol may keep liquid explosives out of the
stadium, but it won’t keep you from smuggling in booze. Hooray for
freedom!

Powered by ScribeFire.

By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela -Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised
Sean Penn for his critical stance against the war in Iraq, saying the
two chatted by phone and soon plan to meet in person.

Chavez said
Penn traveled to Venezuela this week wanting to learn more about the
situation in the country and walked around some of Caracas’ poor
barrios on his own.

“Welcome to Venezuela, Mr. Penn. What drives
him is consciousness, the search for new paths,” Chavez said Wednesday
in a televised speech. “He’s one of the greatest opponents of the Iraq
invasion.”

Chavez read aloud from a recent open letter by Penn to
President Bush in which the actor condemned the Iraq war and called for
Bush to be impeached, saying the president along with Vice President
Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are “villainously
and criminally obscene people.”

The socialist president, who
shares those views, said he and Penn talked by phone _ “with my bad
English but we understood each other more or less.”

Chavez said
the two plan to meet Thursday. He called the actor “well-informed about
what is happening in the United States and the world, in spite of being
in Hollywood.”

What’s more, Chavez said, “he’s made great films.”
The Venezuelan leader said he recently watched Penn’s Oscar-winning
performance in the film “Mystic River.”

For his part, Penn on
Wednesday toured Venezuela’s new film studios on the outskirts of
Caracas. Penn, whose visit was unannounced, did not speak publicly.

Sean Penn Praised by Venezuela’s Chavez

Powered by ScribeFire.

Nick Juliano
RAW STORY

White House senior adviser Karl Rove has rebuked a Senate Judiciary
Committee subpoena and will not appear Thursday to testify about his
role in the firing of nine US Attorneys, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said
late Wednesday.

The Senate Judiciary chairman chided the White House for allowing
Rove to give public speeches about the attorney firing scandal but not
permit his testimony under oath.

“Mr. Rove has given reasons for the firings that have now been shown
to be inaccurate after-the-fact fabrications,” Leahy said in a
statement. “Yet, he now refuses to tell this Committee the truth about
his role in targeting well-respected U.S. Attorneys for firing and in
seeking to cover up his role and that of his staff in the scandal.”

The House Judiciary Committee initiated criminal contempt of
Congress charges against former White House counsel Harriet Miers and
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton last month after they refused to comply
with subpoenas demanding their testimony.

It remains unclear whether Rove will face similar charges. A Judiciary Committee spokeswoman told RAW STORY
Wednesday night that if Rove followed through in refusing to testify,
the committee could decide to issue criminal charges later. The aide
said no decisions had been made yet.

“It is a shame that this White House continues to act as if it
is above the law. That is wrong,” Leahy said. “The subpoenas authorized
by this Committee in connection with its investigation into the mass
firings of U.S. Attorneys and the corrosion of federal law enforcement
by White House political influence deserve respect and compliance.”

Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political
affairs, is expected to appear before the committee Thursday, but his
testimony will be limited by Bush’s claim of executive privilege.

A letter to the Judiciary Committee from White House counsel Fred F.
Fielding claimed Rove “is immune from compelled congressional testimony
about matters that arose during his tenure (as an immediate
presidential adviser) and that relate to his official duties in that
capacity.”

The Raw Story |

Powered by ScribeFire.

Panel Queries Rumsfeld on Tillman Battle Death

By PAUL von ZIELBAUER

NY TIMES 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — With Donald H. Rumsfeld seated at the witness table, the chairman of a House committee investigating the bungled aftermath of the friendly fire death of Cpl. Pat Tillman told a packed Capitol Hill hearing room Wednesday that the time had come for some answers. What did Mr. Rumsfeld and other top Defense Department officials know about Corporal Tillman’s accidental killing by American forces, he asked, and when did they know it?

Three and a half hours, a few four-color charts and a couple of lost tempers later, the chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, solemnly admitted that he had gotten almost nowhere.

“You’ve all admitted that the system failed; none of you feel personally responsible,” Mr. Waxman said, addressing Mr. Rumsfeld, who resigned as defense secretary last fall, as well as one currently serving general and two retired ones who also testified under oath Wednesday. “Somebody should be responsible.”

The hearing, held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was Mr. Rumsfeld’s first return to Capitol Hill since President Bush asked him to resign after the Democratic victories in midterm elections. And although the bitter exchanges between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Democrats who now control Congress focused on the case involving Corporal Tillman, they exposed veins of anger over what the Democrats regard as a lack of accountability for broad missteps in Iraq.

Senate Committee Issues Subpoenas to Rove and Deputy

Josh Marshall’s TPM Mucraker

By Paul Kiel – July 26, 2007, 12:56 PM

Finally, the big one.

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued two more subpoenas as part of
the U.S. attorney firings investigation today: one for Karl Rove and
the other for his deputy, Scott Jennings. Senate Judiciary Chairman
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced the subpoenas on the Senate floor.

The question for Rove and Jennings, of course, is whether to take
the same course taken by Rove’s former aide, Sara Taylor, who appeared
before the committee to answer questions that were not covered by
executive privilege — or to take the approach taken by Harriet Miers,
who refused to show up at all.

The subpoenas call for Rove and Jennings to show up on August 2nd and also produce documents by that date.

Update: Leahy’s statement is below.

Leahy’s statement:

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is issuing subpoenas
to political operatives at the White House for documents and testimony
related to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the mass
firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization of hiring and firing
within the Department of Justice. This is not a step I take lightly.
For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the
voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no
avail. They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed,
the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing
witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and
provide relevant information and documents.

We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows
that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of
at least nine United States Attorneys last year. Testimony and
documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the
highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr.
Jennings. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently
focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether
federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and
corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for these
firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling
by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort. Just
yesterday during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these
firings with the replacement of other United States Attorneys for
“legitimate cause.”

The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege,
despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was
not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for
its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House
officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet
Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary
Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and
instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the
Congress but only to the White House.

Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence
that it is intent on reducing United States Attorneys and federal law
enforcement to merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts
when it dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position
that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia would not be
permitted to follow the statutory mechanism to test White House
assertions of Executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress.
In essence this White House asserts that its claim of privilege is the
final word, that Congress may not review it, and that no court can
review it.

Yesterday, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the senior
Senator from Pennsylvania, the Ranking Republican on the Senate
Judiciary Committee rightly asked:

“Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in
the United States can survive if the president has the unilateral
authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive
privilege and the president then acts to bar the Congress from getting
a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is
properly invoked?”

There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this
Administration’s partisan intervention of federal law enforcement
than if this Administration were to instruct the Justice Department not
to pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a
United States Attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty to
faithfully execute the laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of
title 2 of the United States Code. The President recently abused the
pardon power to forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a single day
of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple
counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice.
Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration
that this Administration refuses to abide by the rule of law.

This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every
administration since World War II in responding to congressional
oversight. In that time, presidential advisers have testified before
congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by
subpoenas. During the Clinton Administration, White House and
Administration advisors were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to
appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House
Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House
advisors. The veil of secrecy this Administration has pulled over the
White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open
government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the
Republic.

The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United
States Attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with
an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an
Administration driven by a vision of an all-power Executive over our
constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty
over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.

What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive
evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors.
We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who
has testified said has said that he was not involved. None of the
senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people
were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included
among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we
have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political
operatives at the White House.

A former political director at the White House made a revealing
admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the
President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public
officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any
particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office
of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to
“preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.” The oath for other federal official is prescribed by
Congress through statute and provides that every federal
officer’s duty is not to support and defend any particular
President or Administration but “to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States” and “to bear true faith
and allegiance” to our founding principles and law.

I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to
take as a United States Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I
proudly represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to
serve as a temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and
protections for the rights and liberties of the American people that it
embodies. My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great
institution of the United States Senate, but to the Constitution and
the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that
independent law enforcement is an essential component of our democratic
government, and that no one is above the law.

Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the Executive
branch to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”
the message from this White House is that the President, Vice
President, and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No
balance. No accountability.

The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C.
§ 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt
citation, the United States Attorney to whom it is sent has a
“duty” and “shall” “bring it before the
grand jury for its action.” For this White House to threaten to
intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up the
truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law. This
law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a duly
elected President of the United States. It is derived from law that has
been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.

The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our
constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest
days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt
federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to
avoid accountability.

Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are
left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to
hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl
Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be
nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what
they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over
20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice
Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed
diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections.
Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were
members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political
contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political
operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services
Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In
her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former
political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that
her briefings included specific political races and particular
candidates being targeted.

In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our
investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes
points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House?
Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove’s involvement
in these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we
have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department
officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning
in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated
inquires at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed
regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys. The evidence
also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New
Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David
Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks
after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of
purported “voter fraud” enforcement cases in his
jurisdiction.

We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the
Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter
fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term
election he sent the Attorney General’s chief of staff a packet
of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in
Wisconsin in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of
those in his office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not
considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such
manipulation shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan
political purposes.

Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the
shaping the Administration’s response to congressional inquiries
into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony
to Congress and statements to the public. This response included an
attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials
played in the firings.

Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd
Graves, U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri was fired
after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have
stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When
the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the
person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown
out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also
brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite
the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a
responsible prosecutor is replaced by a “loyal Bushie” for
partisan, political purposes.

Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates.
Monica Goodling likewise admitted “crossing the line” when
she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration
judges. Rather than keep federal law enforcement above politics, this
Administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.

With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House
takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive
privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not
involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys. I hope that the
White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own
making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward
interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has
threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American
people’s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law
enforcement. Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to
continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political
agenda. Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an
unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other
Administration has done and find and accommodation with the Congress.
If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them
to reconsider the course they have chosen.

There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope
they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can
move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of
Justice and the American people’s trust and confidence in federal
law enforcement.

Powered by ScribeFire.

WIRED’S WRAP:

Annual lefty bloggers conference to be featured on Fox News Show Tonight, Again

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed Under:
Military, Supporting our Troops, Hardba

Powered by ScribeFire.

For someone who can’t talk, film critic Roger Ebert is saying a lot – at times in a British accent.

Open a newspaper and his reviews are in there. He’s published three books since last fall and has two more on the way. All the while, he’s recuperating from cancer surgery and a subsequent operation that left him unable to speak.

“I’m writing as much as ever,” Ebert said in a Wednesday interview with The Associated Press, during which an electronic voice with a British accent spoke the words he typed onto a laptop computer.

And now he’s adding a page to the “Ebert & Roeper” Web site that is all thumbs: His, the late Gene Siskel’s, Richard Roeper’s and those of others who have been filling in on the movie review show.

Starting Thursday, the site will offer visitors a chance to watch spirited – sometimes really spirited – discussions about movies that always ended with reviewers assigning them a “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” designation.

“You can tell when we were mad at each other and when we were together against the world,” Ebert, 65, said of his longtime partner, Siskel.

Sitting in the living room of his home in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood, Ebert talked about his show that looks pretty much as it did when he and Siskel – competing film critics at rival Chicago newspapers – first sat down in the late ’70s on PBS and talked about movies. He answered questions about his health, his work and his plans for the future.

Ebert’s neck is wrapped in gauze and his mouth hangs open, but he appears robust. As he fiddled with his computer before the interview, he even gave a sly smile and his trademarked – literally – thumbs-up when it started speaking his words.

Ebert has been battling cancer. After undergoing a series of operations, he was operated on again in June of last year, with doctors removing a cancerous growth from his salivary gland and part of his right jaw. Two weeks later, a blood vessel burst near the site of the operation, forcing emergency surgery.

He can’t talk because doctors did a tracheostomy, opening an airway through an incision in his windpipe.

Ebert, who has been the film critic for the Sun-Times since 1967 and won the Pulitzer Prize in 1975, said he isn’t quite sure when he might return to the TV show. He still needs surgery that he hopes will restore his voice, but he said he is cancer-free. After being hospitalized so long that he had to learn how to walk all over again, he said he is getting stronger and he and his wife, Chaz, take daily long walks.

“He’s taking about 12,000 steps a day,” his wife said.

In the meantime, he said, he screens as many as three films a day, with his nights spent watching DVDs to catch up on the films he’s missed.

He clearly wants to return to the balcony seat next to Roeper, who has been his co-host since 2000, the year after Siskel died. But, he said, even if he doesn’t, he’d like to see the show “go on and on and on.”

Ebert is obviously proud of the program – as much for what it isn’t as for what it is.

“Too much entertainment TV is just hype and gossip,” he said. “We have no interviews, no premieres, no arrests … And (it is) a rare show that says when we think a movie is bad.”

All of that can be found on the Web site.

Observers can see just how often Siskel, then the Chicago Tribune’s film critic, and Ebert disagreed and how passionately they did so on “Siskel & Ebert at the Movies.” They can see “Ebert & Roeper.”

And they can see more recent shows featuring Roeper and guest reviewers including Jay Leno, The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott and Christy Lemire of The Associated Press.

They can see the time Ebert said he got “worked up” when Siskel didn’t send his thumb north for “Apocalypse Now” – or the time the two heaped praise on the documentary “Hoop Dreams,” smiling at the memory of how the “Oscar judges turned it off after 15 minutes.”

Then there is the memory of the enthusiastic thumbs-up both he and Roeper gave “Monster.” If that doesn’t sound like such a big deal, given that the movie earned Charlize Theron an Academy Award for best actress, Ebert said that at the time they gave their review “‘Monster’ wasn’t necessarily going to theaters at all.”