OK, stopped posting about politics, and decided to do some school work. I ended up running across some pretty funny blog posts by a friend of one of the current legendary C++ programmers. I learned a little bit. For starters, I didn't realize Alexandrescu is married. The description of the wedding included:

At his reception we met Eric Niebler, a badass contributor to BOOST ... [with] whom we shared a table. I am not sure I want to sit next to him ever again. He is so intimidating smart that in order to not lose face I had to mention that my wife went to Princeton.

Of course if I ever shared a table with Alexandrescu or Cristi Vlasceanu, I would have to stay quiet all night to avoid looking dumb. The first time I opened my mouth, ...

Vlasceanu and Alexandrescu appear to be typical friends (if "typical" includes being extra smart and serving in the Romanian army together, and stuff like that).

***

I'm in the middle of setting up a small wireless network for our house, with lot o' cheap computers and a few good ones (the idea is to try learning a little). Vlasceanu's experience isn't too encouraging (especially since we've got a Linksys router, but I think he's referring to the card put inside the computer; he's got an Apple router). But hey, even really smart guys use Apples.

Instead of creating military tribunals, allow me to suggest that the US have the "Gitmo eleven" put on trial in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I'm almost positive that even the current Afghan government would allow a military tribunal against these guys, and that the final punishment would likely be public beheadings.

While judicial independence is a great idea, I truly doubt that there is a judge in all of Afghanistan or Pakistan that would find these guys not-guilty. And that chance falls even further when restricted to Afghan or Pakistani military judges.

I'm being serious here, and it's perfectly acceptable under international law. After all, the courts are open in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the criminal acts took place in those countries. I would love to see the political left arguing against an Afghani or Pakistani trial.

And the argument that "they can't see all the evidence against them" is a red herring. Even in the normal US court system, there are times you don't get to see the evidence against you (PDF):

It is well established that where classified materials are at issue, a court may review such material [secretly, without giving access to one or both sides] without infringing a litigant’s due process rights in order to avoid the harms that would result from unauthorized disclosure. ...

Plaintiffs’ initial argument is that due process disfavors the Court’s consideration of materials provided in camera and ex parte. Although [secret] submissions [judged without first giving access to one or both sides] are not the norm, courts have repeatedly recognized that such submissions are necessary in a variety of contexts (pages 8 and 9).

Now that Armitage has confessed to outing Plame, and Rove already confessed to confirming her identity, we have an interesting timeline of events. We also have Libby facing criminal charges for covering things up. Something's not quite right.

I'm not calling for Fitzgerald's head on a platter because I know he's had access to information I don't have, and I hope that extra information can explain why Libby would go out of his way to cover for Armitage and/or Rove. And, because Libby's facing criminal charges, that extra information should establish a "criminal mind" (for something to be a crime, you must do something wrong, and you must do it with criminal intent, or criminal recklessness, or criminal negligence).

But it is clear that Howard Dean was wrong when he said "the special prosecutor identified 'Official A,' who leaked, and that was Karl Rove." Maybe the next Democratic Party chairman will actually be effective.

Interesting:

"The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," [Sandy Burger] wrote. ...

"The content of this drama is ... inaccurate. ... It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote in their letter. ...

"While ABC is promoting 'The Path to 9/11' as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," [Lindsey and Band] said.

"You can't take a film that's supposed to report on something that's so real and so close and make it into fiction." [Schumer]

I wonder what their opinion of Fahrenheit 911 is.

I don't really care about Paris Hilton, but I find it funny that:

She hadn't eaten all day and was "starving," Hilton explained. ...

Hilton had spent Wednesday filming a music video and going out for dinner with her sister Nicky and some friends.

Something's fishy here.

Steve Colbert once said that Fox News gives you "both sides of the story, the President's and the Vice President's." Pretty much everywhere I've lived, the two "acceptable" sides to any story aren't very far apart. Rudy Giulianni is a conservative New Yorker, but he's to the left of most home-grown liberal Southerners I know.

So when I make comments about Democrats, I want to make it clear that some of my best friends are Democrats (hee hee). Of course, they are Democrats like Zell Miller or Orson Scott Card (no, Zell Miller and Orson Scott Card are not my best friends; stay with me here), because that's the kind of Democrat you find in the South. Aside from imported Democrats (although I am an import myself).

Just a funny link: "I think someone should try to blow up a plane with a piece of ID, just to watch the TSA's mind implode."

I was reading up on programming, and came across a clever pun that I had to share: "There are two possible conclusions here. One is that I’m so dense, I’m surrounded by a small event horizon."

The current word from the so-called experts who watch elections is that over thirty Congressional races are "competitive" and that the Democrats are more than likely to win the 15 seats they need to take over the House. That's hogwash. The Democrats may take control, but there's no way thirty elections are truly competitive.

Just like in '04, '02, the people most vocally upset about the government are the people least likely to vote. And the people most likely to vote are only upset the government isn't doing more of what's upset those other guys. Yes, 60% of the country dissaproves of George Bush generally, and in those thirty Congresssional districts over 50% of the voters disapprove of their representative as well. But well over half of those people will not vote. I'd be willing to bet good money that we're going to see voter turnouts of 25-30% in many of the "competitive" races.

In North Carolina we don't have any senators or statewide officials up for election. The ballot Paige and I will look at will have a spot for the US representative for our district, and a handful of city offices (like the mayor, and the school board). It's really hard to see anybody getting too excited over that ballot other than the guys who vote in every election. Sure, North Carolina is in a different boat than other states, but not all that different. Thirty states have a senator up for re-election, but only one. That means if a voter is upset at the senator up for re-election he may vote. But what if he's upset at the senator not up for re-election? I'm upset at Senator Dole, but she won't be up for re-election for four years. I'm not more or less likely to vote in the meantime, even if I'm planning on being first in line to vote against her when the time comes.

We're looking at a lot of local races, and the voters are going to be the guys who'll brave rain and sleet and hail to vote in a local race. But this fact will escape many people. Of course you'd expect experts to realize this, but these same experts couldn't make a distinction between people old enough to vote and people likely to vote in '02 and '04 either (in 2004, Andrew Tannenbaum aggregated lots of polls together, compare what those polls said before the election, to the final results).

And the guys most likely to vote are the guys who trust Bush most on the War on Terror. Especially because the other side makes fun of the phrase "War on Terror." I'm pretty sure I know how my grandparents will vote. And I'm pretty sure they will vote because they are often poll workers. Bush's speech yesterday was tailored to them and to the other reliable voters in the country.

By the way, this local elections issue is precisely why Karl Rove is "a bit dismissive of the idea of themes for midterm elections" and expects "individual candidates [to] make the decision on which themes work best for themselves."