The Patriot Act was renewed yesterday, this time without the sunset provision, despite a valiant attempt to keep it, from people like Dana Rohrabacher. He made the argument for it eloquently:

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, “the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society.”

“We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed,” he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

Exactly. And of course, this principle applies to much more than the Patriot Act. Almost every piece of legislation is put forth to address a “crisis” of one type or another–crises that often pass (if indeed they even ever existed at all), yet the legislation stays on the books forever absent explicit repeal. Sadly, it wasn’t to be, though:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

“Why sunset legislation where there’s been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?” Sensenbrenner said.

This seems like a weak argument to me. The fact that it hasn’t been abused in the past doesn’t mean that it can’t be in the future. Anyway, I think that every federal law should have a sunset provision.

Charmaine Yoest has the story.

Now this is the kind of reparations initiative that I can get fully behind.

At risk of violating Glenn’s copyright, I can only say, heh.

John Tierney has another tale of insanity in our War on (Some) Drugs. This is cruel punishment. Sadly, it’s no longer that unusual.

Thirty-six years ago today, the day before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were to become the first humans to land on another planet, twenty-nine-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne departed this one, drowning in Ted Kennedy’s car as he left her helpless, at Chappaquiddick. It’s a shame that the people of Massachusetts can’t see their senior senator for the national disgrace that he is.

If this report is true (and sadly, I don’t find it in any way incredible) some members of Congress (guess which party) are asking the Library of Congress if Karl Rove can be impeached. They’re not just delusional, they’re fundamentally ignorant of the Constitution. It would be an embarrassment to me to have such a dunce as my representative, but somehow, they get reelected.

[Update at 11:16 AM EDT]

It’s for real. I expected this kind of stupidity from Conyers, but Barney Frank is involved, too. I disagree with him on most issues, but I never took him for such an idiot as this implies.

No, a political advisor is not a “civil officer,” and he’s not subject to impeachment. And of course, this is double stupid, because even if Rove were impeachable, the notion that an impeachment measure would have any traction in a Republican House is ludicrous. Of course, I suspect that, at least in Congressman Frank’s case, he knows this isn’t serious, but is probably good for fundraising from the moonbats.

There are pictures on the web from Cuba, of the devastation in the wake of Dennis. There are rumors that Fidel isn’t accepting foreign aid, out of a false pride and unwillingness to admit to the extent of the damage, and that people are growing angrier. Let’s hope that the Cubans can finally rid themselves of the dictator who has ruled them for too many decades.

Byron York has an exit interview with Brad Smith of the FEC. I found this bit amazing (if true, though I’ve no reason to disbelieve it):

I report (well, actually, I link to someone else’s report), you decide.

You know, the Rove thing reminds me a lot of the “Girlie Men” controversy:

Meanwhile, the larger context is a hissy fit about how liberals aren’t wimps and hand-holders.

Hint: when you’re being called a wimp, the last thing you want to do is whine about it.