First he questions Federal authority for roving wiretaps [h/t The American Prospect ]: In late September, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota made a great show of questioning whether the roving wiretap provisions of the PATRIOT Act were constitutional. He read the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, aloud to a stunned Assistant Attorney General David Kris. Franken noted that the amendment contains "pretty explicit language" about such intrusions and asked Kris whether he thought the roving wiretap provision fit that standard. "This is surreal," Kris responded before going into a technical explanation of the legal justifications for roving wiretaps. But then he votes for the bill, anyway: Last week, the administration outmaneuvered most congressional efforts to strengthen civil-liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, inserted provisions in the Homeland Security appropriations ...

Except, of course, if we're doing it. From Anti-war.com : Iranian officials vowed a “crushing response” today after a suicide blast in Sistan-Balochistan killed at least 49 people, including several high ranking members of the nation’s elite Revolutionary Guard forces. Iran’s state media reported the Baloch separatist group Jundallah had claimed credit for the attack, and officials in the military accused the US and Britain of involvement, threatening to take revenge against those responsible. Pure Iranian state-controlled media propaganda, right? Have something bad happen and claim the old Great Satan did it, huh? Where do these guys come up with these whacky ideas, like the United States would fund suicide bombers? What? The source is ... ABC News ? A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. The...

The announcement that the Diocese of Wilmington is filing for Chapter 11 protection in the face of 141 different complaints of child sexual abuse has given me pause to think about another issue ... medical tort reform. How are these two connected? I read in another source that the diocese has on hand assets equaling roughly $50-100 million, but could face debts of $100-500 million from these cases. According to the letter that the CBO sent Senator Orrin Hatch regarding medical tort reform , the nation would save $54 billion in part by placing a $250 K cap on "pain and suffering" awards and a $500 K cap on "punitive" damages. That would mean, if these cases were ajudicated under that standards for child sexual abuse, that the most the Diocese would be on the hook for would be $750 K/person times 141 case, equalling $105.75 million. Had the Diocese been the beneficiary of that sort of tort reform, it probably would not have had to declare bankruptcy. Which is a probl...

Here I am thinking about those voices currently without their own blogs, possibly because they really don't want the self-established pressure to write every day or every week, or because there have been some disagreements along the way: Rsmitty, Dana Garrett, Mike Matthews, donviti.... Or those who are plainly running a bit on fumes these days in their own blogs (because interest comes and goes, but real life intrudes without mercy): Shirley, Brian Shields.... And some of our regular commenting voices around the Delaware blogosphere who have never taken the plunge: Anonone, Perry, noman.... Not to mention other bloggers who occasionally have an idea or a perspective that just doesn't fit their regular gig.... I'm thinking of a different kind of blog, something I'd call Delaware Spectrum, that would be an ensemble of shared interest in political blogging rather than an ensemble of shared politics.... I don't actually know if something like this would have enough ...

There are few outstanding question/observations, none of which is yet substantive enough for a complete post, but all of which deserve an answer. Item One: Delawaredem notes Tyler's endorsement of Mike Castle for Senate and wonders what my take would be. Not difficult to figure out, DD, if you look at my comments last year around election time : For US Congress I'm voting for Libertarian Mark Anthony Parks and against Republican Mike Castle. There are no end of reasons to vote against Castle at this point, as much as I like him personally. [Truth in advertising: as Governor, back in the early 1990s, Castle appointed me as co-chair of the State Social Studies Curriculum Frameworks Commission.] But Mike has rolled over too many times for the Bush administration despite an image of bipartisanship. He'll win again this year, but he won't get my vote. I'm choosing Mark Parks not just out of party loyalty, but because Mark is a man who keenly believes in limited govern...

...and the dowry will be bazillions [they hope] of dollars of Federal money. The University of Delaware thinks Vision 2015 is tremendous. Not surprising: universities generally think whatever will bring them in millions of dollars of Federal grant money is a good thing. Nor is it surprising to find the News Journal continually pimping for Vision 2015 : For nearly four years a coalition representing a wide range of public sector and private sector interests, including unions and business leaders, teachers and administrators, has worked to develop a plan to transform our schools. It's a plan informed by data collected from around the country and around the world and it is a call for rigor and intellectual honesty and excellence. Called Vision 2015, it is the foundation upon which we can build a world class school system. That, at least, was clearly labeled as an editorial by John Taylor--former editorial page editor and now--wait for it-- executive director of the Delaware Public Po...

Delaware is obediently preparing to bend over and accept the civil rights reaming that is Real ID [as quoth the WNJ ]: Those getting a Delaware driver’s license will soon face increased security measures. That could make life difficult for some – particularly immigrants who are not in this country legally and don’t have the necessary documents. The federal REAL ID Act of 2005, which came in response to the 9/11 Commission’s findings that 18 of the 19 hijackers had obtained driver’s licenses, requires states to revamp their licenses and licensing procedures to meet federal standards. The law was condemned by many states as a costly unfunded mandate – it would cost them an estimated $4 billion to implement it – and 24 states have refused to comply or passed laws limiting their participation. Delaware, which didn’t resist the federal Real ID mandate, is expected to be ready to meet the requirements of Real ID. If you want to read about the serious civil rights, personal privacy, and gover...