Never been a big fan of the reality show phenomenon. But here’s one I can get behind:

…all the characters on “Terrorism in the Hands of Justice” are captured suspected insurgents. And for more than a month, they have been riveting viewers with tales of how they killed, kidnapped, raped or beheaded other Iraqis, usually for a few hundred dollars per victim.

Why isn’t this on Fox? I would get cable just to watch terrorists being humiliated. I suspect a million Americans would tune in to watch these interrogations with subtitles and see just what made the terrorists tick.

Propaganda, you say? Whatever. The AP’s happy to print photos of Iraqi journalists getting executed. I don’t see why we should be denied film of the terrorists answering questions about their crimes. It might have the salutary side effect of convincing some people that our enemies really are murderous two-bit thugs wrapped in a tattered cloak of Islam, and not just brave ‘ minutemen’ like Bill Maher and Michael Moore pretend they are.

Hat Tip to the sadly retired (?) Ace of Spades.

Did Sandy Berger take originals or copies? I still don’t know. Do you?

I use the word “original” to include any document that bears original handwritten notations, even if the rest of the document is otherwise an exact copy of another document.

I also include any document that is substantively different from other versions, even if it is otherwise a copy. (This commonly occurs with drafts.)

I’m not sure that officials of the National Archives use the term “original” in the same way I do. So when they say Sandy Berger took only copies, what do they mean?

Power Line summarized the available evidence, and concluded here that Berger took originals (as I have defined the term).

But if he took irreplaceable originals, that seems to me far more significant. I have previously described the distinction as “the difference between mere incredible sloppiness, and a potential cover-up.”

This seems like a good topic for some enterprising journalist — and I include bloggers in that description.

Note: This is actually Patterico’s post, not Xrlq’s.

UPDATE: Legally, of course, it makes no difference. I said this originally but cut the passage for space reasons.

Xrlq has a thread with a discussion of the state action requirement as it relates to the Schiavo case. It’s not a thread for recycling well-worn policy arguments, but it is a place to weigh in on interesting constitutional issues. Con law experts should pay a visit.

The American Spectator’s Prowler (hat tip to the Brothers Judd) talks to some White House sources about Jimmy Carter’s failed bid to get to represent the US at the Pope’s funeral:

Carter’s representatives, apparently from the former president’s Carter Center, reached out to the White House over the weekend and offered to lead the U.S. delegation should the President or other senior Bush administration officials not be able to attend.

That’s awfully generous of him. The Prowler points out that because of his mushy, commie-coddling pro-liberation-theology politics, however, Carter wasn’t exactly the Pope’s favorite US President, and neither was he Bush’s:

“The other thing that people forget is that Carter has treated President Bush very badly. He has openly criticized the President in a manner that President Clinton has not,” says a Bush administration source. “He has traveled around the world bad-mouthing this president and this country’s policies. I would be surprised if a single person gave a thought to including him in the delegation.

Due to my special extrasensory George Felos-like clairvoyant powers, I am able to reveal that Jimmy Carter actually communicated a few other requests to the White House that the Prowler missed:

(more…)