This is a weird case:

A woman charged with causing a fatal car crash in 1999 says that she couldn’t have been behind the wheel because she was performing a sex act on the driver at the time.
Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito’s Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.
But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito’s pants were down when he was thrown from the car.
. . .
Assistant State’s Attorney Maureen Platt said the defense is flawed.
“His pants could have been down because he was mooning a car he was drag racing,” Platt said. “His pants could have been down because he was urinating out of a window. His pants could have been down because he wasn’t feeling well.”

Hmm. I’m not sure how you prove this either way. I presume the defendant will testify; it’s not clear if she has any additional evidence. I wonder if there any sort of endangerment statute against interfering with a driver when the vehicle is in motion?

Do you have any questions regarding what’s been happening in Haiti? This post probably offers all you want to know, and then some.

President Bush was on the phone yesterday:

President Bush called Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, to congratulate him on his victories. “I said, ‘I hope we have a great debate about the issues before the country,'” Mr. Kerry said, recounting his conversation with the president.
Scott Stanzel, a Bush campaign spokesman, said Mr. Bush told Mr. Kerry that he had won the nomination against a tough field and that he was looking forward to a spirited race.

Bush might as well have called his campaign staff and gave them a thumbs up, for his re-election bid just got easier.
It’s kind of mind-boggling: of all the Democrats in America, we end up picking a boring, non-telegenic, Massachusetts senator with one of the most “liberal” voting records in Congress to head the ticket. That’s sure to wow the swing voters. Here we have an incompetent incumbent just begging to be thrown out of office, and this is the alternative we come up with? Alas.
Given the competition, Kerry can win in November. But that will depend to a large degree on whether the media decides to expose the candidates for what they are or if they’re going to revert to their lazy, he said/she said, horse race-based coverage.
Kudos to Senator Edwards for running an inspiring campaign. It would have been nice to have seen how the race might have gone, had the media covered the candidates and the issues rather than sponsoring the Kerry coronation following New Hampshire.
I just hope we don’t have to re-live that 1988 nightmare once again.

Compare and contrast:

The federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks has scheduled interviews with former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore this month but is struggling to get similar cooperation from President Bush and administration officials.
Members of the bipartisan commission said they were considering a subpoena to force the public testimony of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. She has declined to appear at the panel’s two-day hearing later this month.
. . .
While Clinton and Gore have consented to private questioning without a time constraint, Bush and Cheney have agreed only to private, separate, one-hour meetings with the commission’s chairman and vice chairman, instead of the full panel.

So what’s the administration hiding, and why is it trying to invoke executive privilege arguments rather than doing the right thing? At least commissioner Timothy Roemer is talking tough, and some of the victims are calling out national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on her lies:

Rice met with the panel for four hours at the White House on Feb. 7. After the session, at least two commissioners, Roemer and Richard Ben-Venister, another Democrat, said it would be useful to have Rice testify in public.
Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they are especially interested in Rice’s testimony. They cited her May 2002 comments that the administration had no prior indication that terrorists were considering suicide hijackings. Reports later showed that intelligence officials had considered the possibility.

UPDATE: More evidence the commission isn’t going to take it:

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is refusing to accept strict conditions from the White House for interviews with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and is renewing its request that Mr. Bush’s national security adviser testify in public, commission members said Tuesday.
The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the panel’s chairman and vice chairman.
The members said the commission had also decided to continue to press the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to reconsider her refusal to testify at a public hearing. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are expected to be asked about how they had reacted to intelligence reports before Sept. 11, 2001, suggesting that Al Qaeda might be planning a large attack. Panel members want to ask Ms. Rice the same questions in public.

If Bush could find the time to take a month-long vacation before 9/11, he can find a few hours now to come clean on it.

Here we go again:

Republicans also plan a series of votes on judicial appointments and tax cuts this year that could put Kerry in tough political spots, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. Another possible wedge issue, aides in both parties say, is a long-standing proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw burning the American flag.

Andrew Sullivan finally seems to be waking up:

Flag-burning, fag-burning. Anything for a few votes. And what’s really amazing is how cynically these alleged conservatives use the Constitution itself for their partisan ends. One word: sickening.