Ted Stevens is a lawyer and I'm not. Maybe that's why he's able to read the Speech & Debate clause as providing him immunity from federal prosecution. The constitution says that members of Congress are "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any speech or debate in either house..." That privilege was extended to congressional aides, thanks to Mike Gravel and the Pentagon Papers affair. But neither Stevens nor his aides have been arrested, and the investigation does not pertain to his "speech and debate" duties.

I previously stated my doubts about Stevens' arguments for moving his trial from Washington, D.C. to Anchorage. The Voice of the Times has no such reservations. They believe Stevens is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers, meaning Alaskans. This is a common misunderstanding of "jury of his peers" -- a phrase which does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.  The phrase originally meant that commoners should not sit in judgment of nobles. Since the United States is nominally a classless society, all Americans are peers. Therefore, Stevens can be tried by a jury anywhere -- provided the trial occurs in the "district wherein the crime shall have been committed" (6th Amendment). Since Stevens' non-disclosure would have occurred in Washington, D.C., the trial ought to be held there. In any case, isn't that where most of his "peers" live nowadays?

UPDATE: Jim Crawford made an interesting point about the value of Stevens' house versus the alleged value of the renovation gift. What's odd is that he assumes Stevens' experience as a federal prosecutor means he's smart enough to avoid breaking the law, whereas present-day prosecutors are so dumb that they didn't think to check property tax records. Which is the least of the aspersions Crawford casts. He describes the FBI investigation as "this terrorist attack." That's uncalled for.

The Summer Olympics gives China a chance to demonstrate its greatness to the world. And it looks like China is taking the same path that made America great: ignore all faults. A recent Pew Research poll found 75% of Chinese believe the rest of the world loves them. A separate poll taken in other countries found only 46% have a favorable opinion of China. Domestic opinion of China's greatness is likewise distorted.

John Kamm of the Washington Post blames China's control of information. This is most visible with the empty "protest parks" in Beijing. Most Chinese might conclude that there is nothing to protest -- assuming they are unaware that protest permits are impossible to obtain. The government control of information makes that unawareness a safe assumption. Kamm also concludes that the distorted public opinion can explain the Chinese government's policies -- though this assumes that the Communist government is responsive to public opinion, distorted as it is. ("China has its own version and way of exercising our democracy," says the Beijing Olympic organizer.)

Ignorance of how the rest of the world views your country is America's secret of success, too. Look no further than President Bush. While in China, he was unable or unwilling to see any problems with America. Wouldn't accept the premise of the question.

Being an American is bliss. The rest of the world thinks we're jerks because we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Which is lucky, because they think we're jerks. Therefore, we believe we're not jerks, because nobody thinks we are, as far as we know. It's an optimistic attitude that China has learned to embrace.

P.S. Speaking of lack of self-awareness, "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Really, John McCain? At least President Bush had the smarts to limit a similar statement to invading neighbors or democracies. And, as was pointed out on The Daily Show, UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad used the qualifier "in Europe." What's McCain's excuse? And while I'm asking, does he really believe the invasion of Georgia is the first serious international crisis since the end of the Cold War? I'm not sure it's even the first one this summer.

There are a couple of reasons why I might choose to not include a given story in a newscast. First, if it has names I can't pronounce with no way to avoid saying them. (At least I don't pull a Kent Brockman and change Kuala Lumpur to "France.") Which is why I report so infrequently on tennis and golf. I'll also pass on a story if it's generic axe-grinding. We see a lot of these on ANWR lately. I don't care anymore who's for or against drilling; get back to me when something new happens.

And then there are the stories that don't air because they are too unbelievable. There's no way they could be true. Like, say, a GAO report that found most US companies don't pay taxes. Did I read that right? That can't possibly mean what I think it means. After all we've heard about businesses being taxed too much? That would mean that our economy depends on companies not paying the taxes we've been expecting them to pay.

The worst part is, there doesn't appear to be a violation of law. Not that it would matter: Attorney General Michael Mukasey has decided that the Justice Department doesn't have to prosecute violations of law, anyway. "Not every violation of law is a crime," he said. Really? That's just unbelievable.

And yet it's true. True that he said it, anyway. I'm glad I didn't report this story, because the context makes all the difference. As Kevin Drum learned, violations of law can also be civil offenses. Therefore, they would be handled as lawsuits, not criminal offenses.

For an astonishing fourth weekend in a row, The Dark Knight has been the #1 movie at the box office. Ordinarily, such figures aren't worth reporting, but it's been a long time since any movie has held on to the #1 spot for more than three weekends. Someone is probably spinning this as an endorsement of the movie's alleged conservative values. Let's put a stop to this right away: The Dark Knight is not a pro-Republican movie.

It was Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal who favorably compared George W. Bush to Batman. (Not so: a scientific survey has determined Bush is Get Smart.) Klavan must have missed the part where Batman is portrayed as an outlaw and a self-appointed dictator. President Bush wouldn't be the only conservative hero in that mold; Jack Bauer is another, the kind of hero who does the dirty work to make his world a better place that doesn't need the likes of him. (Jesse Taylor wonders if Gotham City deserves saving, if it takes a self-appointed dictator to do it. Does the same apply to Bauer's Los Angeles? Or Bush's America?)

The other important reason why The Dark Knight doesn't work as an allegory for the War on Terror is that the the Joker is no Osama bin Laden. As Filmbrain observes: "There's no ideology, or clash of cultures/religion at play here...." The Joker is a pure nihilist with no agenda beyond creating chaos. Some believe the same of al Qaeda, but this is a dangerous oversimplification. The Joker's brand of terror is about as far removed from current events as possible, except for the common denominator of blowing up innocent people. Matthew Yglesias agrees, though he finds there is a valid parallel between Batman and Dick Cheney.

In his WSJ piece, Klavan also wondered why conservative values "like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films." Maybe because those aren't conservative values, they're fantasy values -- the qualities valued by all heroic fantasy. Ideology has no exclusive claim on them.

Anyway, doesn't Batman's refusal to use guns disqualify him as a conservative superhero? Except that his principles are flexible enough that he can use guns, missiles, and bombs on any of his Bat-vehicles. He also doesn't have a problem (in the movie) with using a gun that shoots custom-built sticky-bombs. But a handgun like the one that killed Ma & Pa Wayne? Holy taboo, Batman!

UPDATE: For further reading, John August reflects on the politics of superheroes.

Okay, so Rush Limbaugh is Paul Revere, George W. Bush is Batman, and Nancy Pelosi is... Jesus Christ? Or not. Or something.

Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann ridiculed Pelosi's environmentalist stance by saying that the world doesn't need saving since someone else saved it "over 2000 years ago." The conclusion-jumpers assumed Bachmann was referring to Jesus Christ, even though that's plainly ridiculous. Jesus was born approximatedly AD 1 to 4, so the story goes, and didn't begin his world-saving until he was in his 30s. That would be less than 2000 years ago. Therefore, Bachmann could only have been referring to some other, pre-Christian savior. Was it Buddha? Krishna? Zoroaster? Asclepius? Maybe she was thinking of Dionysus, the patron demigod of alcohol: "the cause of, and solution to, all of our problems."

I kinda wish Bachmann was referring to Socrates as her savior. He was famous, after all, for saying that the root of wisdom is admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. Socrates needs more disciples these days.