More bad news for Mike Nifong

On Thursday, the North Carolina state bar filed an ethics complaint against the embattled DA in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Now the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys have called for him to step down from the case. Via ABC News:

Dec. 29, 2006 — In yet another moral blow to Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys called for the prosecutor to step down from the Duke lacrosse case.

The group, which represents district attorneys from across North Carolina, said in a statement that “it is in the interest of justice and the effective administration of criminal justice that Mr. Nifong immediately withdraw and recuse himself from the prosecution.”

“It’s extraordinarily unusual and it means a great deal,” said Joshua Marquis, a district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore.

The district attorney group also called for the case to be reassigned and handed over to “another prosecutorial authority.”

The statement was prompted by charges of ethics violations against Nifong filed Thursday by the North Carolina bar. Those allegations accuse Nifong of making inappropriate comments about the case in a series of press interviews early in the proceedings.

“As prosecutors, we do not try our cases in the media. We do not file charges frivolously,” Marquis, who is active in the National District Attorneys Association, told ABC News.

“I do not know what the merit of the charges are, but Mr. Nifong has not brought respect to our profession,” Marquis said. “Some of his actions have brought great disrepute on the profession of prosecution.”

Yeah, I’ll say.

Some Democrats will support ‘spending restrictions’ on the Iraq war

Because it’s “time to get out.” Via the Brattleboro Reformer:

WASHINGTON — Fearing President Bush is poised to escalate the Iraq war, several New England Democrats said they will support spending restrictions to block a potential troop surge, or even leverage a withdrawal.

It is a challenging maneuver that could crosscut the promises of their incoming Democratic leaders to financially support the administration’s war plan while simultaneously calling on the president to reduce the United States’ presence in Iraq.

Moreover, the attempts to design spending roadblocks are muddied by divisions within a Democratic Party leery two years before a presidential election of losing its new and narrow majority by appearing soft on terrorism and against the troops, lawmakers and analysts say.

Still, several New England lawmakers expressed frustration with reports that Bush might stream up to 30,000 troops into Iraq. The lawmakers said they would support attempts to employ congressional purse powers to block any move toward enlarging the U.S. footprint in a country descending toward civil war.

Others said they would try to cut funding altogether, with or without the surge.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is having discussions with other senators about legislation that would restrict the president’s use of the military.

He said the “only way” a withdrawal would occur is through the budget process.

“I don’t know anyone who believes we’ll see an end to (the Iraq war) the way we’re doing it now,” he said in an interview. “It’s time to get out of there.”


If the president rejects the Iraq Study Group recommendations, such as withdrawing troops by 2008, the spending measure could provide an opening for lawmakers to place restrictions on the president’s use of military money.

“What will the president do? That’s the $64 million question,” said Congressman-elect Peter Welch, D-Vt. “I would oppose adding troops. And I would support steps to deny funding for adding more troops.”

There is a movement in Congress to halt all funding for the war, but it has gained only marginal support.

Nineteen House members signed onto the measure, offered by Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., last year to slash all funding for military operations in Iraq, except the cost of mobilizing a withdrawal.

Aside from McGovern, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was the only other New England House member to cosponsor the bill, named the “End the War in Iraq Act.”

Sound familiar?

McGovern’s bill is reminiscent of a similar effort to end the Vietnam War, offered by former Sens. Mark Hatfield of Oregon and George McGovern of South Dakota in 1970. The Hatfield-McGovern amendment, later named the “Amendment to End the War,” was narrowly defeated on the floor, but marked a turning point after which several narrower spending measures restricting military operations in Southeast Asia were adopted.

Now similar amendments that could restrict the president’s options in Iraq are being discussed, said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a member of the Armed Services Committee.

“Many of us are discussing all options relative to funding and what we can do to get us out of Iraq,” he said in an interview. “To the extent there are amendments to push the administration on Iraq, I think you’ll see those kind of amendments.”

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., has proposed banning any money for permanent bases in Iraq. John Podesta, former chief of staff under President Clinton, urged lawmakers this week to pass a measure prohibiting Bush from deploying more than 150,000 troops to Iraq.

Divisions within the Democratic Party, however, could prevent those and other measures from passing. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has dismissed efforts to cut troop funding, and incoming Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has endorsed a troop surge if it hastens training of Iraqi forces.

Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., is on Pelosi’s transition team. He said the divergence among Democrats “is going to be very, very difficult” for Pelosi to manage.

“The Democratic caucus is not unified,” added Capuano, who supports withholding Iraq war funding, except from the cost of bringing troops home.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, the new head of the House Ways and Means Committee (who has been busy these days mocking our Commander in Chief), is not mentioned in that piece but he is also a proponent of cutting off funds for the Iraq war.

I so hope they try this. I really, really do. Let’s have a national debate about funding the war, Democrats, ok? And Republicans, don’t forget to mention the last time this happened and who was responsible for it.

Democrats don’t mind continuing to throw money into failed social program after failed social program here in the United States over and over and over again year after year because they don’t want to “hurt the poor” and really believe these programs do “some good” but yet they don’t seem to mind financially undercutting (or at the very least considering it) war missions past and present when they believe them to be failures. In other words, they’re ok with continuously funding their failures, but not ok with funding what they believe to be Republican failures.

For all the bumbling and stumbling we’ve sometimes seen from the Republican leadership on the Iraq war, putting Democrats in control of the purse strings of it was tantamount to putting the Keystone Cops in charge of our national security.

God help us all.

Guess it’s time for me to start doing those dishes

The BBC is reporting that a new study suggests that women who do a ‘moderate’ amount of housework are cutting the risk of getting breast cancer:

Women who exercise by doing the housework can reduce their risk of breast cancer, a study suggests.

The research on more than 200,000 women from nine European countries found doing household chores was far more cancer protective than playing sport.

Dusting, mopping and vacuuming was also better than having a physical job.

The women in the Cancer Research UK-funded study spent an average of 16 to 17 hours a week cooking, cleaning and doing the washing.

Experts have long known that physical exercise can reduce the risk of breast cancer, probably through hormonal and metabolic changes.

But it has been less clear how much and what types of exercise are necessary for this risk reduction.

And much of past work has examined the link between exercise and breast cancer in post-menopausal women only.

The latest study looked at both pre- and post-menopausal women and a range of activities, including work, leisure and housework.

All forms of physical activity combined reduced the breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women, but had no obvious effect in pre-menopausal women.

Chores protected

Out of all of the activities, only housework significantly reduced the risk of both pre- and post-menopausal women getting the disease.

Housework cut breast cancer risk by 30% among the pre-menopausal women and 20% among the post-menopausal women.

The women were studied over an average of 6.4 years, during which time there were 3,423 cases of breast cancer.

The international authors said their results suggested that moderate forms of physical activity, such as housework, may be more important than less frequent but more intense recreational physical activity in reducing breast cancer risk.

First thing tomorrow I’m going to buy a broom (the only one I currently have is used strictly for transportation).

Saddam’s execution “imminent”? (UPDATE II: SADDAM EXECUTED)

Rumors and news stories are swirling that the former Iraqi dictator who the US captured and ousted in 2003 will be executed this weekend. Hot Air and Malkin are on top of the latest developments. Jules Crittenden speculates on the time the execution will occur and has a link roundup of other opinions.

In the meantime, the NYTimes seems to be lamenting the fact that Saddam’s rec’d the death penalty. Hmm. The Washington Post, OTOH, takes a strong stance in favor of Saddam’s sentence. Good for them.

Latest development: Saddam wants the US to block his execution.

Update: Will it happen before 10 PM tonight? The AP reports on the possiblity.

Update II: He’s been executed. Via Drudge:

CNN Broke at 10:06… NBC first broadcast net to report execution of Hussein at 10:14 pm, ET — CBS went up at 10:18 — ABC up at 10:25…

Iraqi-Americans cheered the news.


Here are some reactions from the blogosphere over the announcement.

Idiotarian and Anti-Idiotarian of the year

Little Green Footballs is holding its annual Idiotarian and Anti-Idiotarian of the year contests. Here’s the link for the Idiotarian of the year voting. The nominees are:

Kofi Annan
Hugo Chavez
John F. Kerry
Mainstream Media
John Murtha
Keith Olbermann
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Tough to pick just one, isn’t it?

Here’s the link to the Anti-Idiotarian of the year contest. The nominees are:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
John Bolton
Canadian PM Stephen Harper
Australian PM John Howard
Melanie Phillips
Pope Benedict XVI
Robert Spencer
Mark Steyn
Stuck Mojo
Wafa Sultan

Polls close at midnight 12/31/06.

Hat tip: Betsy Newmark

Related: Times Watch posts their list of the top ten lowlights for the NYT in 2006. (Hat tip: Michael Rubin at NRO’s The Corner)

Cindy Sheehan arrested – once again

Along with four other protesters. Via AP:

(AP) CRAWFORD, Texas Peace activist Cindy Sheehan and four other protesters were arrested Thursday for blocking a road near President Bush’s ranch, delaying the arrival of Vice President Dick Cheney’s motorcade, authorities said.

Sheehan and the others lay or sat in the road for about 20 minutes and didn’t heed requests to move, Texas Department of Public Safety Lt. R.T. King said.

“They weren’t going unless they were arrested,” King told The Associated Press. He said Cheney’s motorcade was among the vehicles delayed by the demonstration.

Sheehan told the Waco Tribune-Herald that she and others were conducting a “peace surge” to address concerns that Bush may increase U.S. troop numbers in Iraq. Protesters said they had expected to be arrested.

Only four other protesters? More testament to the fact that even the embarassing far left has its limits on how far it’s willing to take embarassingly extreme measures in order to ‘protest’ the President.

More: Curt at Flopping Aces blogs about more Cindy Sheehan nuttiness that has been in the news recently.

Update: Speaking of far left moonbats