7/30/005 -- Republican Humor, North Korea, Energy Bill

Yadda, yadda. Papers. Life. I lack time.

Campus Taboos: Republicans
I've been thinking about sneaking into the college Republican meetings just out of curiousity. I'd like to know how "the other side lives" and what draws them to become campus pariahs, to stand around on sidewalks hoisting giant, yellow flip-flops instead of doing what most of us cynics do and ignoring everything except for the occaisional snide remark.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3461
I like this article talking about the pure, underepresented class. Having been in several classes that devolve into screaming matched between the fifty hippies and the one Bushy, I am tired of hearing lectures on tolerance from those who can't even listen to a list of reasons why the war on Iraq might have been justified without spitting fire. There was a lost of frustration over Jon Stewart's recent interview with Rick Santorum, though I liked it. I thought Jon Stewart managed to show a lot of respect to a person whom he disagreed with. There are some fights you will never win, and not much point in winning them even so since Stewart's crowd ain't exactly leaning to the right. If we could discuss our views with more rationality, maybe we could get along better.

Still, I can't help being amused by Repblican hate. Futile gestures of resistance against the dominating power.
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/humor/browse/Ntt-Sex_Ntk-All_N-10040_pv-shittoshinola.25820079_D-Sex_Ne-10036_bt-1
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/politics31_html.htm
http://web.infoave.net/~dennmac/reich-wing/antigoptaglines.html

"Why do republicans wear earmuffs?
To avoid the draft."

Heh. Puns.

North Korea Policy Shift
Rove isn't the only one in this adminsitration who knows a little something about twisting words.

Bilateral (dictionary.com): Affecting or undertaken by two sides equally; binding on both parties.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan (way to find a backbone, press). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050728-3.html

Q Scott, the U.S. has now had three lengthy bilateral meetings in China with the North Koreans. Are you now having direct talks with the North Koreans?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't say "now." Let me back up and remind you that we have met with the North Korean delegation and other delegations within the context of the six-party talks. It is something we have done in each of the round of talks. So I would disagree with you saying "now." North Korea's nuclear weapons program is a concern of all nations in the region. That is why the President pursued a multilateral diplomatic approach. And in terms of the bilateral discussions that are going on, those are discussions that relate to the modalities of the talks, and it's a way for us, also, to understand North Korea's position and for us to explain our views, as well. But we have had, previously, bilateral discussions with other delegations within the context of the six-party talks --

Q Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and this is happening within the context of the six-party talks.

What I think it's important to keep in mind, and this might be what Helen is grumbling about, is that -- (laughter.)

Q You have rejected time and time again.

MR. McCLELLAN: We have -- we have no intention of negotiating any bilateral agreement with North Korea. That approach was tried and it failed. North Korea, I will remind you, violated the '94 agreed framework.

Q What do you see in this joint statement that the two sides, or the six sides are working on?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I'll let the Assistant Secretary Chris Hill talk about it. We want to see progress made toward the goal of a denuclearized peninsula. He's been talking about it. This is something that is going to be a deliberative, methodical process. It's going to take time, as Chris Hill said earlier today. There's a lot of work to do. But we are committed to making progress, and we think the other parties are committed to making progress in this round of talks. And we'll just have to see as the talks continue. But they continue at this point.

Q Since the first time, now, you've had three separate meetings where the North Koreans and Americans have met together alone, in private.

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all the delegations.

Q It's the first -- pardon?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've had meetings with all of the delegations.

Q I know, but this is not -- it's not comparable. North Korea is the issue, and we have met privately with them. But we've always said we weren't going to. Why do you keep rejecting the whole idea that there's a possibility for rapprochement? There are negotiations going on, obviously. We have heard their side now, and we are telling them what we think, and so forth.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the place to negotiate is in the context of the six-party talks and with all parties at the table. All parties that are involved in this share the concern. All of us want to see a nuclear-free peninsula, and that's why the President --

Q I'm asking you a specific question. The two sides are getting together privately. Why don't you admit that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just said it.

Q No, you only say it within -- you're so afraid --

MR. McCLELLAN: Did I not just say that? I think I did.

Q There's always a -- you're afraid to say there's been a change --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, David. Have a question?

Q -- that's what you're afraid to say.

MR. McCLELLAN: There has been change. We're pursuing this in a multilateral format with all six parties in it, but not in terms of negotiations.

Q They just go together -- (laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get the last word in here....


Anyone remember the Presidential debates? (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html)

"The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind." - George W. Bush.

Interview from the Newshour: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/rice_7-28.html)

"...we've always talked to the North Koreans within the context of the six-party talks, one-on-one, if necessary in bilaterals...We're going to concentrate on the policy goal here and the policy goal is that within a six-party framework -- in other words not as a bilateral agreement between the United States and North Korea..." -Condoleeza Rice.

The distinction between talking in bilaterals in context of the sixty-party talks and bilateral talks in the context of bilateral talk is that, in one, the other parties will be involved in the deal. To put more pressure on North Korea. Either way, I think talking's a good start, even if they adminstration's dancing around what it means to be "bilateral."

New Republic Article Supporting Bilateral Talks (from 2003):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_3_67/ai_99818429

Energy Bill
No one was going to be completely fond of this bill, but I think most of it's a travesty, side-stepping any real progress or help in favor of throwing money at corporate donors.

Editorials:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/30/new_energy_bill_doesnt_do_enough/
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3288530
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51035

Environmental Groups' Responses:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/7/emw267521.htm
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=1033

Fun Quote:

"...what people object to in these kinds of bills is they pick winners and losers among industries, but this time they solved that problem by making everybody a winner. Everybody gets a subsidy. The only people who lose are taxpayers. It seems to me that if there's been a crisis of not subsidizing enough energy producers and corporate America, well that crisis is now fully solved."
-Ramesh Ponnuru (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sp_7-29.html)

7/21/05 -- London, Yuan, Bananas

Bombings in London
Again with the explosions. Thank goodness no one was killed this time.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/22/news/london.php

Unfortunately, every nation in the world is susceptible to death and there's nothing we're going to able to do to make things 100% safe, but on the home front, the least we could do is minimize the harm. The best way to do that is to not give funds in equal amounts to all states, but instead look at risk management. People have been complaining about the governmnent's foolishness over defending Colorado and California with equal amounts of cash forever, but politicians seem more interested in pork than in protection. I know Oregon would probably get less money if the system was changed, but I still think there's got to be a better division of funds.

Homeland Funding article from a year ago
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/homesec.tm/

Recent funding editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/opinionspecial/14thu1.html

China Finally Changes its Currency
I didn't think it would, but China has given in to world demands to change the yuan. Not float it, but its a step a step closer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/business/worldbusiness/21cnd-china.html?ei=5094&en=e12a13cb678ded22&hp=&ex=1122004800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1121988351-b2TuzJUKFoLKDZ9K+JpBlg

Forbes' Breakdown
http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/07/21/china-yuan-dollar-cx_pm_0721chinayuan.html

Christian Science Monitor's Analysis
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0526/p02s01-usfp.html

If you're not into economics, like I am, one must ask: why does it matter? What's the effect? Well, my guess is very little, in the short term. In the long term, hopefully reducing trade surplus and possibly decreasing outsourcing, that sort of thing. As long as China kept devalueing its currency, pegging it to the U.S. dollar, U.S. goods would find it difficult to compete without protectionist policies, which might have colaesced sooner or later (though I doubt it. We need China more than they need us.) It might also result in less dependence on Asian countries as they release their strangehold on our currency in their banks, something that has left the U.S. in a tricky position.

Proposed China/U.S. tarriffs article:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002319.shtml

Greenspan says the effect will be minimal:
http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2005/05/20/0520autofacescan07.html

China and U.S. t-bills (treasury-bills):
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Markets/GG06Ag04.html

Not all people think changing China's currency will have benefits for U.S. businesses. The Globalist worries about dollar dumping, though the gradual action the Chinese government is taking will probably not have the predicted catastrophic effect.
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4539

Bananas!
If you missed the all "bananas are going to go extinct" fury back in '03, you won't be getting the odd feeling of deja vu I feel upon learning that farmers are killing their ability to produce bananas. What fruit will be next?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200507061088.html

All you ever wanted to know about bananas going extinct, and then some.
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp

Ten Years Ago: July 21, 1995
The Cardinal Kung Foundation (devoted to underground Chinese Catholics) released a press release stating that 30,000 underground Catholics observed a "supernatural celestial phenomenon." Apparently, the Holy Mother appeared in the changing colors of the sun to her followers.
http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/press/950721.htm

Ironically enough, that day was also the day when celestial bodies moved to form a "not a total earth-water" star of David. Whatever that means.
http://www.maryshea.com/1995.html

7/20/05 -- Roberts

Been wrapped up in a police investigation (not for anything I did) so I've been too busy to post. But, quickly.

Roberts & Rove
Bush made a shrewd political move with his choice. I think he'll please most conservatives without generating enough public outcry to embarrass him. The white house needs a win right now, and unless Roberts does something or did something incredibly bad in the past, he'll probably be a shoe-in. Some of the more liberal Democrats are going to protest and I'm already getting interest-group emails telling me Roberts is evil, but unless Dems can delay for a year and a half and do it in such a way that they don't lose the midterm elections, he's probably what we can expect. I'm surprised Roberts wasn't crying like a baby with joy. If I was nominated to even the appeals court, I would have gone through ten or fifteen kleenix. David Brooks made an interesting comment on Newshour with Jim Lehrer yesterday that I agree with. While Bush was certainly looking for some political points, Brooks think that Bush chose his nominee based on his finding "a kindred spirit." I think that's true. One of Bush's best qualities is that he does have a lot of loyalty to his friends (sometimes more than is justified, Tenet, Rumsfield, etc.) but I think that, while politics never left his mind, the decision must have been profoundly personal. He talked with someone he thought he liked. I think he would have supported someone he liked even if the nominee would rip Washington apart with its teeth.

You've got to admire the Bush administration's method of handling this. A lot of people are saying Bush chose so quickly to save Karl Rove, but I don't think Bush would make a decision so important so quickly to save his top advisor and himself from more embarrassment, especially considering that I still think Rove is smart enough to avoid doing anything technically illegal. Still, Fitzgerald better find something. I hate to see journalists go to jail for what turns out to be a case that he can't prosecute. It's almost better, I think, that the media is distracted for awhile anyway. Everyone was probably on the verge of being burned out about hearing it. This way, if anything really important comes up after the hoopla has settled, it'll seem fresh and interesting. If nothing new comes up, Democrats can never mention it again except at rallies without losing face or political capital for looking somewhat petty. I also think that the Rove story probably wouldn't have occupied the media long even if Bush had waited to nominate Roberts. The London bombings, Condi's trip to Israel, the Patriot Act renewal, and the neverending death march in Iraq are a lot to contend with even in a 24-hour newscycle. Still, if Bush's Brain was right about Karl Rove being part of the leak, maybe I'm not giving the far left fringe of the media enough credit. The biggest effect on me personally will be the acceptance that not all of them are crackpots.

The really brilliant timing I'd say comes from the early nomination. Not only did Bush supporters throw out the wrong name, diverting interest groups so that their campaign was wrong-footed from the start, but also chosing a nighttime venue when congress was not in session. Also, the public will be so sick of talking about Roberts that by the time the actual congressional hearings come around, people won't pay as close attention as they might otherwise. I think everyone, in the end, will want the vote to come quickly so they can get on with their lives. Especially any Democrats eyeing a run in 2008. Trying to court the liberals for the primary and the money but the moderates for the election is going to be a little difficult., like Waltzing along a razor's edge.

The New Republic has some interesting theories on how Robert's nomination will effect Bush's base groups and his reasons for choosing someone less conservative than expected. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050718&s=lizza072005

Of course, no one can go as crazy as other bloggers when it comes to speaking. You can find an opinion or link to just about any topic having to do with Roberts at http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/

The same people have some excellent excerpts and summaries rulings Roberts has been involved in (as few as they are). http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/selected_opinio.html

Some of the more interesting cases include dismissing a case against former U.S. P.O.W.s from the gulf war against Iraq (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/035232a.pdf), the dissent against hearing an E.P.A. en banc because the endangered species act might violate the commerce clause (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=015373B) and one that has something to do with a girl arrested for eating French Fries on a subway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072001257.html). Ah, the American legal system.

Of course the print media has something to say.

The Washington Post is in favor: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902035.html

The New York Times demands close scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/opinion/20wed1.html?hp&oref=login

Excerpts from other newspaper editorials: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000981711 I especially like the Boston Globe. "As for the inevitable whining from some Senate Democrats, well, there's that inconvenient fact that Bush did win the election."

7/11/05 -- Courthouse News

The Lower Courts Make Headlines
I found a cute little site that sums up a lot of important, little cases that you never get to hear about but that are interesting anyway, if you're a law-freak like me. I like the headlines:

"Teen Has Tort Claim for Loss of Virginity"
"Dog Case Ruled Unfit for Federal Court"
"Pasta War Ends in 'Puffery' Finding"

Sigh.
That's all for today. I have a quiz to study for and two papers to write. Legal stuff. I'm pretending to sue the conservative Oregon paper on campus for libel and justifying my cases more than necessary.

7/8/05 -- 7/7 Mourning

To the City of London.
William Dunbar (written in Old English)

Soveraign of cities, semeliest in sight,
Of high renoun, riches, and royaltie;
Of lordis, barons, and many goodly knyght;
Of most delectable lusty ladies bright;
Of famous prelatis in habitis clericall;
Of merchauntis full of substaunce and myght:
London, thou art the flour of Cities all.
Gladdith anon, thou lusty Troy Novaunt,
Citie that some tyme cleped was New Troy,
In all the erth, imperiall as thou stant,
Pryncesse of townes, of pleasure, and of joy,
A richer restith under no Christen roy;
For manly power, with craftis naturall,
Fourmeth none fairer sith the flode of Noy:
London, thou art the flour of Cities all.
Gemme of all joy, jasper of jocunditie,
Most myghty carbuncle of vertue and valour;
Strong Troy in vigour and in strenuytie;
Of royall cities rose and geraflour;
Empresse of town{.e}s, exalt in honour;
In beawtie beryng the crone imperiall;
Swete paradise precelling in pleasure:
London, thow art the floure of Cities all.
Above all ryvers thy Ryver hath renowne,
Whose beryall stremys, pleasaunt and preclare,
Under thy lusty wallys renneth down,
Where many a swanne doth swymme with wyngis fare;
Where many a barge doth saile, and row with are,
Where many a ship doth rest with toppe-royall.
O! towne of townes, patrone and not-compare:
London, thou art the floure of Cities all.
Upon thy lusty Brigge of pylers white
Been merchauntis full royall to behold;
Upon thy stretis goth many a semely knyght
In velvet gownes and cheyn{.e}s of fyne gold.
By Julyus Cesar thy Tour founded of old
May be the hous of Mars victoryall,
Whos artillary with tonge may not be told:
London, thou art the flour of Cities all.
Strong be thy wallis that about the standis;
Wise be the people that within the dwellis;
Fresh is thy ryver with his lusty strandis;
Blith be thy chirches, wele sownyng be thy bellis;
Riche be thy merchauntis in substaunce that excellis;
Fair be thy wives, right lovesom, white and small;
Clere be thy virgyns, lusty under kellis:
London, thow art the flour of Cities all.
Thy famous Maire, by pryncely governaunce,
With swerd of justice the rulith prudently.
No Lord of Parys, Venyce, or Floraunce
In dignytie or honoure goeth to hym nye.
He is exampler, lood{.e}-ster, and guye;
Principall patrone and roose orygynalle,
Above all Maires as maister moost worthy:
London, thou art the flour of Cities all.

7/07/05 -- Speculation, Earth Day, Energy Policy

More Supreme Court Speculation
Maybe President Bush is as sick of Pat Robertson dictating what is right or wrong as the rest of us. He called for less aggression against Gonzales, it's nice to see him defending a friend and nice to see him criticizing both sides for their battlefield mentality. I think everyone's jumping the gun a little. Can't we save the smear campaign until after he's chosen his nominee? My guess is that he's going to close his eyes and pick someone with little or no record, just so that the screaming inside his office will stop.

I think the spectacle to come will deter Supreme Court Justices from stepping down until they are literally drooling at the hearings.

The New York Times and Washington Post, respectively, wade into the gauntlet for some analysis. So much for a politically independent judiciary. The Washington Post focusses on the Gonzales question. PBS is at the bottom, consulting senate judiciary members. The award for understatement of the week goes to committee chair Arlen Specter, who notes: " ...it's understandable that Americans would be concerned about who her replacement should be."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/politicsspecial1/03groups.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602320.html?sub=AR
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec05/scotus_7-6.html

Or Bush could save us all a lot of time and trouble and just annoint Judge Judy. (I'm not advocating this, for all you sarcasm-challenged types.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/325877p-278366c.html

Founder of Earth Day Dies over the Weekend
In Eugene, OR, environmentalism has an appeal that Christianity might elsewhere. Surprisingly, the campus community (perhaps because there is no community during the summer) isn't in mourning. He didn't even get a mention in the campus newspaper.

Still, his influence is certainly deserving of note. He helped bring environmentalism to the forefront of the national mind (if only for a moment) and because of him and others, industrial projects have to take note of enviornmental damage (example--Alaska) . I know the environment is something that only hippies are supposed to care about, but I'd certainly prefer if my children weren't born with lung cancer in an oil-soaked neighborhood. Or underwater, for that matter.

Luckily, others did remember him. CNN did a very nice profile.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/03/obit.nelson.ap/

Speaking of the environment [cough, cough, obvious transition], the G8 are still stumped on global warming. I don't care whether Bush believes the science or not, we could spend millions of dollars pursuing research that still ends with a question mark. If he doesn't believe in it now, then he never will. BUT even if sea levels aren't rising, it would be nice if we stopped throwing noxious gasses up into the air, or try to reduce it. I guess the only question is of approach. The Kyoto treaty may have liberals swearing on it like the book of God, but it's still just a piece of paper. Even the ratifiers of the treaty continue to smear our air with smog.

An interview, again from PBS, shows the advantages and flaws of Kyoto. I question the conservatives' hope that all we need to do is invent a magic technology and all these petty energy problems will just disappear, but it's certainly a good thing to try.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec05/climate2_7-5.html

China makes fun of the U.S. for its poor environmental record. I find it somewhat amusing that every other country likes to slam on the U.S. whenever possible. We're not a rolemodel, we're a country, and the other nations shouldn't use our flaws to justify their own. Still, China puts out so much pollution I'd be more than happ to see a shift. The question is, can China put its money where its mouth is?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNG6UDJJL01.DTL

Energy Policy
Speaking of emmissions, the senate's energy bill passed. I'm looking forward to seeing what gets chopped in committee. I bet nobody's going to be happy and, as soon as this court thing is finished, we're in for yet another epic dogfight. The Senate and House will probably pass whatever comes out, but I bet it's going to be a close thing.
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/161703/headed_to_conference_committee_energy_spendingbill_clears_senate/

7/02/05 -- Sandra Day O'Connor

Wow, what a shocker. I was home for the day, studying, so I didn't hear about her retirement announcement until now. If you want my opinion, I'm guessing that this means that Rehnquist will try and hold on a season.

I think Sandra Day O'Connor might be remembered among liberals as "not as bad as she could have been" but that's a poor summation of how great this woman was. We may not always have agreed on the law or the ways in which she justified the law, but I respect her not only for the challenges she went through but also because of the way she always seemed to approach things with an open mind. Perhaps too open... you could throw her in a field and have no clue where she was going to land... but I think that willingness to think about an issue rather than come to table predecided is one of the best traits of any person.

She was a Spectacular Woman
I remember the first time I ever saw O'Connor speak was on C-SPAN. She talked about how she had to have people put in a women's bathroom because before, there wasn't one.

While her bios are many, this seems to be one of the most extensive
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/myweb/justice/o'connor.htm

Swinging Sandra has been pivotal in a number of votes. Some of the opinions (pre-1998) that Sandra Day O'Connor has written. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/oconnor.dec.html

Some excerpts of her key opinions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01court-opinions.html

ACLU's list of her recent pivotal votes
http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18623&c=286

A nice interivew with her
http://www.cardozo.net/life/summer2000/interview/

Speculation
It's a sad day for Democrats and civil libertarians when Alberto Gonzales looks like the best hope. Personally, I think President Bush's sagging poll ratings (dubbed "self-inflicted" by one broadcaster) would be helped tremedously if he had the courage to propose a moderate candidate (preferrably female). However, I think it would be best for the Republican party to start a fight because then the money would be coming in, the base would be happy, etc. So, the question is: does Bush want to deal with this quickly and with grace so he can get through the rest of his agenda in Congress easily, or does Bush want money and a legacy and is willing to forget his agenda in the coming brawl?

My guess is, after his stubborness on stem-cells, that he's going to dig in his heels and we're going to have one terrific fight. I watched his press release where he asked for a dignified process. My snort was certainly less than dignified. I don't think that's even possible.

So who's it going to be? Speculating is probably just as pointless as speculated who's going to run in 2008, but ain't it fun?

USA Today's Usual Suspects:

"Lower court judges who have been on the White House's radar as potential nominees include Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson, both based in Virginia, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit; Emilio Garza and Edith Jones, both in Texas and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit; John Roberts, of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Samuel Alito, based in New Jersey on the U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit."

CNN has a nice internal link inside the article that lists replacements and gives brief profiles (search for Potential Nominees)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/resignation.supreme/

Their list: Samuel Alito, Janice Brown, Frank Easterbrook, Emilio Garza, Alberto Gonzales, Edith Jones, Alex Kozinski, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Theodore Olson, John G. Roberts, and Harvie Wilkinson.

Bloomberg also has a list, some profiles, and some reasons why the Bush administration might choose said person in their article, which includes the aforementioned Alito, Brown, Garza, Gonzales, Jones, Luttig, McConnell, John G. Roberts, and Wilkinson. The new name they throw into the midst are Edith Brown Clement
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aBk2T7IVS.i0&refer=top_world_news

Just to throw my hat into the ring, I'm guessing the President with nominate Edith Jones. I think she's conservative enough to power-up the base and moderate enough to make the more mainstream Democrats reluctant to oppose her.

Addendum: Journalists and Novak
There's a lot fo speculation that Rove was Novak's source and Novak is cooperating with the prosecutor because he knows Rove won't get in trouble. These accusations have been floating since the Plame affair. Some examples:
http://www.bustbob.com/view.asp?ID=5
http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000740.php

Personally, I don't think Karl Rove would be stupid enough to leak to Novak personally. I respect Rove's intellect. He's a genius at public relations. I would guess that if Rove had any involvement, it's going to be one of his underlings who bites the bullet, pays a fine and get slapped around by the press, sending the whole issue to an unsatisfying close.

Dissent and Art
I don't usually watch NOW but political art is one of my passions. "The Design of Dissent," an art exhibit featuring designs of protest graphics contains some pretty provocative and interesting imagery. You can look at some of the pictures at the links below.
http://www.schoolofvisualarts.edu/sa/index.jsp?sid0=5&page_id=139&event_id=222
http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/designofdissent.html

A lot of the stuff is really stunning. The book "Design of Dissent" is definitely going on my Christmas list. Amazon.com has sample pictures from the chapter on Communism
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1592531172/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7925961-6040807#reader-page