I’ve little respect for standardized testing, and I hear that they lay it on thick in Texas. I have a years, so I’m not thrilled.

You have NO IDEA how much time we spend on TAKS practicniece in kindergarten down there and two nephews who’ll get there in two and three e, real TAKS, benchmark tests, end of unit tests, end of semester exams, and PSAT practice.

Is you learning yet?

pointecoupeedemocrat,
Are you anywhere near Hammond? I have a friend there, and she makes me so long to see her flowers and trees in bloom. It sounds so beautiful.

Hammond is north of New Orleans, across Lake Pontchartrain. I am just northwest of Baton Rouge.

Educated Plaintiff @ 136

… from my cspan daily newsletter:
CSPAN 1 – Senate Hearing with Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales on DOJ Oversight (9:30am) – LIVE

CSPAN 3 – Senate Hearing with Atty. Gen. Gonzales on Dept. of Justice Oversight (9:30am) – LIVE…

FWIW, I just checked the Senate Judiciary Comittee’s site [ http://judiciary.senate.gov/ ] — no apparent webcasting coming from them.

Thanks! Coffee, water, toast (no popcorn this early). Most of all I will watch this hearing with an appetite for truth and justice!

AZ Matt @ 111

OK! Let’s play How Pissed is Waxman!

Here is Today’s Henry Letter to the RNC. On a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 SuperExtremelyPissed how pissed do you think Henry is?

…

To date, the Committee has received none of the information referenced above. Although staff met with RNC counsel and has communicated with RNC counsel by phone and email, the RNC still has not identified the “roughly 50″ White House officials who held RNC accounts. And despite several requests, the RNC has not provided any details about the number of RNC e-mails sent or received by White House officials. This is elementary information that should already have been provided to the Committee.

Instead of providing this information, the RNC counsel has proposed to limit the Committee’s request by using narrow “search terms” to identify e-mails relevant to the committee’s investigation. On Monday, RNC counsel proposed eight search terms, such as
“political briefing,” “Hatch Act,” and “2008.” While the “search term” approach was offered in good faith by the RNC counsel, it presents some serious problems. For example, the search terms proposed by the RNC would not have located a January 19, 2007, e-mail from an official in Karl Rove’s office to an official at the General Services Administration transmitting a copy of PowerPoint slides prepared by the White House that list the top 20 Democratic targets in 2008. That e-mail read: “Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we’re not supposed to be emailing it around.”

Using search terms to limit the number of documents to be produced risks overlooking potentially responsive documents. The volume of e-mails involved may make resort to search terms necessary. But before the Committee can assess whether a search-term approach is required in this case – and whether it is required for every White House official or only some of them – the Committee needs basic facts about the scope and nature of the e-mails preserved on RNC servers. The Committee staff reasonably requested a meeting tomorrow to discuss these issues, but this request was unreasonably rejected. In fact, the RNC counsel stated that no meeting would occur until the Committee agreed to limiting search terms. This is not an acceptable proposal.

For the reasons outlined above, the Committee requests the following information by noon on Friday, April20, 2007:

1. The identity of all White House officials who have held RNC e-mail accounts;

2. The total number of e-mails sent by each White House official through an RNC email account during each calendar year;

3. The total number of e-mails received by each White House official through an RNC e-mail account during each calendar year;

4. The total number of e-mails sent by each White House official through an RNC email account to a “.gov” e-mail account during each calendar year; and

5. The total number of e-mails received by each White House official through an RNC e-mail account from a “.gov” e-mail account during each calendar year.

The purpose of the above requests for information is to facilitate a productive discussion between the Committee and the RNC regarding the most efficient and effective response to the Committee’s requests for email communications. In addition, the Committee has been asked by numerous federal agencies for this information to assist them in complying with the Committee’s request relating to compliance with the Presidential Records Act.

I love this game; thank you for asking me to play. I think Henry is only at 7ish cuz he says: While the “search term” approach was offered in good faith by the RNC counsel….”

He has lots more pissy things to say…just watch.

Go Waxman, Leahy, Conyers, Fitz and Firedoglake! Keep their feet to the fire!

This morning C-Span had Rebecca Carr a Correspondent from Cox News discussing the AG hearing. She explained the investigation and hearing so clearly. She said the main question is “was there political interference in prosecutorial indepedence”? She went onto say “there seems to be evidence of interference”.

The calls from people who keep saying “what’s the big deal” are disturbing.

Christ All Mighty these are some of the same people who stayed glued to their T.V.’s when the Republican controlled congress spent tons of money and time investigating a Presidents lies under oath about a B.J., and then went onto try to impeach Clinton. (hello Ohio’s ex senator II phased Dewine)

Many of these B.J. junkies fail or refuse to comprehend the seriousness of “alleged” interference in our judicial system.

… from my cspan daily newsletter:
CSPAN 1 – Senate Hearing with Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales on DOJ Oversight (9:30am) – LIVE

CSPAN 3 – Senate Hearing with Atty. Gen. Gonzales on Dept. of Justice Oversight (9:30am) – LIVE…

FWIW, I just checked the Senate Judiciary Comittee’s site [ http://judiciary.senate.gov/ ] — no apparent webcasting coming from them.

“Yes” . . .

“There’s a call for you from Cumberland”

Ledeen today:

Why Do They Show the Killer’s Tapes? [Michael Ledeen]

Surely they know it will spawn copy-cats. So are they showing it because they would rather enjoy copy-cats?

Ledeen a while ago:

June 16, 2004 — THE video only lasts four minutes or so –grue some scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein’s thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn’t bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

.
.
.

But every TV network has endlessly shown photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib. Why?

“Because most [journalists] want Bush to lose,” says AEI scholar Michael Ledeen, who helped host the screening of the Saddam video.

Where is Billmon when you need him?

Thanks for pointing out Micheal “creative destruction” “noble lie” Ledeens contradictions.