Day: December 7, 2005

Hands down, this is the most amazing, creative and well executed Christmas lighting display I’ve ever seen. Prepare to be amazed. I wouldn’t want to see the electricity bill though…

Video here.

Another show here.

UPDATE: The Party’s Over, but you can relive the magic yourself. After you buy your way to the magic, here’s the setup instructions.

UPDATE II: Radio interview with Carson Williams, owner of the home. (mp3) | Today Show interview (video) | 26,000 Christmas Lights |

UPDATE III: Think you’re serious about Christmas lights? Then go visit the Lights! Lights! Lights! bulletin board, where there are plenty more people like you, talking about…lights.

FINAL UPDATE: If you’re tired of Christmas Lights, why not try Bunnies? Oh, and this is great too.

Via AP: Shots were fired on board an American Airlines flight that had landed at Miami International Airport, according to broadcast reports. At least one person was wounded, the reports said. The plane had just arrived from Colombia and was headed to Orlando. Television showed police SWAT officers surrounding the plane. Airport and Miami-Dade County police officials said they had no immediate comment.

CNN is reporting that the shots were fired by a Federal Air Marshall.

UPDATE: Airline Passenger Who Made Threat Killed

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway to an American Airlines plane that had arrived from Colombia, officials said. No bomb was found in the bag, a U.S. official said. Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Doyle said the dead man was a 44-year-old U.S. citizen. It was the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks that an air marshal had shot at anyone, he said.

According to a witness, the man frantically ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757 while his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication.

The passenger indicated there was a bomb in his bag and was confronted by air marshals but ran off the aircraft, Doyle said. The marshals went after him and ordered him to get down on the ground, but he did not comply and was shot when he apparently reached into the bag, Doyle said.

The shooting occurred shortly after 2 p.m. as the plane was about to take off for Orlando after about two hours on the ground in Miami. “I don’t know yet if the passenger had been on the plane and was getting off, or was starting to board the aircraft,” airline spokesman Tim Wagner said.

Obviously, this is a tragedy, but I hope no one decides that we should disarm federal air marshals or worse, that we should remove them from passenger airplanes. That would be another tragedy. 

More over at The Counterterrorism Blog

UPDATE: Desperation

The Bush administration is mounting a counter attack against Knight Ridder for describing Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito as a conservative. The offensive came after Senate Democrats circulated the story to constituents in the hopes that the analysis of opinions written by Alito could be used against him to derail his upcoming confirmation hearing.

The administration’s response – delivered separately Tuesday by the White House and the Justice Department – reflects its determination to defend Alito and its sensitivity to the “conservative” label for him.

The 2,500-word Knight Ridder analysis, based on 311 opinions by Alito during his service on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded that he “has worked quietly but resolutely” to advance his conservative philosophy on a host of legal issues.

“Although Alito’s opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he’s seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business,” reporters Stephen Henderson and Howard Mintz wrote.

Administration officials said the story unfairly cast the Supreme Court nominee as a conservative ideologue.

“His 15-year record on the 3rd Circuit shows him to be a mainstream, fair, thorough judge,” Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand said in a C-SPAN interview devoted to her critique of the Knight Ridder analysis.

Brand, whose duties include shepherding judicial nominations through the Senate, rejected the conservative label for Alito.

“The term conservative means different things to different people. A judge is supposed to apply the law, not make it,” she said.

I have no argument with Assistant Attorney General Brand. Of course we want our Supreme Court Justices to interpret the constitution and apply the law as a result of that interpretation. I understand the reasons why the Bush administration would not want Alito to be pinned into an ideological corner as a less than competent extremist. It’s important for the administration to avoid any unnecessary bumps in the confirmation road. But, I’m afraid this avoidance of the ‘C’ word – the so-called conservative label, is an over-reaction that Republicans should generally avoid. 

This hypersensitivity doesn’t lend itself well to the party. We expect Democrats to run from the ‘L’ word, because liberalism has taken on a negative caricature that the Democratic party hasn’t been able to redress. And as a weapon, it works. Wearing a big sign with the phrase “I’m a Liberal” simply won’t win you an election, and so you have individuals like Hillary Clinton who will do everything possible to avoid the label. Unfortunately for Democrats, Republicans know about this weak spot, and we’ll jab it with a fork every time.

Now, when a Republican reacts to the ‘C’ word in the same way Democrats react to the ‘L’ word, alarms should go off. It’s a false fear that must be shaken immediately. It’s illegitimate. By giving the impression that Republicans fear being called conservative, we adopt a negative issue that has become the exclusive domain of the Democratic party. This is something we simply don’t need to do.

The Bush administration has to use all of the necessary tools to ensure an Alito confirmation, but they need to be careful to avoid reacting negatively to conservatism. Let’s not delete the “C” word from our vocabulary.

Related: Congressional Black Caucus to Oppose Alito | Hollywood People Rally Against Alito |

After yesterday’s courtroom outburst and threats of a boycott, Saddam Hussein followed through, at least partially today by not attending a court session. The trial adjourned until December 21, 2005.

After two prosecution witnesses described beatings and torture by the regime, Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin adjourned the proceedings and said the court would reconvene six days after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections.

On Tuesday, Saddam had said he would not to take part in what he called an “unjust” court.

The other defendants and Saddam’s lawyers were present in the courtroom when Amin convened the session at 3 p.m., about four hours late. Amin said the court would inform Saddam about or brief him on the proceedings that took place during his absence.

The judge then told defense attorneys that the court will meet with them “after today’s hearing to discuss the security of the lawyers,” which became a major issue after two members were murdered.

Court official Raid Juhi told reporters after the session that Saddam attended a closed-door hearing that preceded the public session “and the court decided that he should be removed from the hearing on the basis of the law.”

“So Saddam did not boycott but he was allowed to stay out of the hearing on the basis of a certain request,” Juhi said without explaining what it was. “He was present at the courtroom during the closed session. He presented something to the court and the court decided to excuse him.”

Juhi said Saddam would attend the Dec. 21 session.

“The court is trying to balance the rights of the defense with the rights of victims,” Juhi added.

They should be dragging this guy out of his bed every morning and force him to sit through and listen to the testimony of his victims. His protestations of injustice and his outright denial of responsibility is completely outrageous.

(Take a deep breath, phew.)

I admit, this is a tough one for me. The idea that a brutal dictator like Saddam should have any rights at all after what he’s done to the Iraqi people is a hard pill to swallow. But, the reality is, he does have the support of some in Iraq and if this trial is to succeed in serving up any justice it must be legitimate. The ‘letter of the law’ has to be followed.

Still, this shouldn’t excuse Saddam’s behavior. His little courtroom tantrums have to be stopped, or the trial will turn into a complete circus and it’s legitimacy will be called into question.

It’s a real balancing act for Judge Amin. So far he’s done a fair job. Let’s hope he has an iron will and can see this process through.

                                   64 years ago today
                                   December 7, 1941