A quick rundown

Since it is late in the day and I'm just going to make a quick post to get started, here's a run-down on some of the most contentious issues of the day.

1. London bombings - Okay, so the first attack, two weeks ago, was likely al-Qaeda or an affiliate. Today's probably weren't. They were so slapdash, so completely not in al-Qaeda's MO (they don't pull the same attack twice, particularly not within two weeks), at the wrong time of day, and not involving a suicide angle. There is no way this was al-Qaeda. It may have been an unaffiliated Muslim group, but I doubt it. It may have been IRA, but I don't think so. I think there a better chance that an ultra-nationalist group like the BNP hired people, possibly even Muslims, to plant the bombs and run away. The BNP has been benefitting from the attack two weeks ago. Keeping the populace worried about Muslims will continue to benefit them. Therefore they seem a more likely suspect to me than al-Qaeda.

2. Karl Rove - Whether or not he actually said her name, whether or not he knew she was actively being shielded by the CIA as a covert agent, the fact of the matter is that he did out a CIA undercover agent, and he should lose his job, at the very least. He had seen high-security memos with discussion of the agent before he revealed her. At the very least this means he violated his security clearance, or someone else did by showing it to him (but how he's working in the post he is without a highest-level security clearance would be beyond me). Therefore he should lose his job, his clearance, and he should not ever be able to get a high-level security clearance in the future. I don't care if he goes to prison or not, but what he did was as bad, if not worse, than Geraldo Rivera going on the air and discussion troop positions during the invasion phase of the war in Iraq. And considering that the president had once said that he'd fire the person responsible for the leak, if Bush is the "man of his word" that he claims to be, he should be following through and canning Rove, rather than lowering the bar so that Karl can clear it.

3. John Roberts - Probably not the most qualified person to nominate. Probably not someone I could support, since he seems to think that it's okay for the cops to cuff, process, take shoelaces from, and jail a pre-teen kid for eating a single french fry in the DC Metro. This sort of offence would garner most adults an on the spot citation. However, this little girl was arrested and jailed. I wonder where Roberts would have fallen if he were on the Singapore court that sentenced Michael Fay to a caning for vandalism. Perhaps he would have supported cutting the kid's hand off. After all, if simply eating one fry can land you in the pokey, why shouldn't vandalism cost you a hand? Add in the fact that, despite protestations made to the contrary during his Court of Appeals hearing process only two years ago, he's rabidly anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-privacy. He loves the PATRIOT Act. He supports indefinate detention of uncharged "suspects" at Guantanamo Bay. Of course, during the debates last fall Bush said he would appoint a strict constructionist to the court, and he has followed through on the threat promise. Alas, all we can do now is try and swing 5 Republicans over to our side of the argument. There's a good shot at getting 3, but probably no more.

So, here is my first time up on the soapbox. I thank you all for indulging me in this brief run through the top issues on my mind.