Just when you thought Patrick Fitzgerald was an apolitical prosecutor, a “prosecutors prosecutor,” this gets sprung on you: Patrick Fitzgerald Planned 2004 October Surprise.
Here it is in his words:

Announcing the Libby indictment on Friday, Fitzgerald made it clear that he wanted to spring his Leakgate October Surprise a year earlier – at the eleventh hour of the 2004 presidential campaign:
“I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, [that] witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005,” he told reporters.

So now it seems that the indictments are nothing but spite, “I can’t get you for the crime, but I’ll get you for not having your story straight” kind of thing.
I said so earlier, if there is no underlying crime, then you shouldn’t be able to indict people under this “lying to investigators” law. People are supposed to be safe and secure in their privacy, and any efforts they take, within reasonable laws, should respect that privacy.
Fitzgerald has become nothing more than a party hack, the same as that prosecutor in Texas going after DeLay. They are going after Republicans however they can, by any means necessary, legal or extralegal.
That just shows you what kind of people they are.

It seems someone wants to use a new policy for dealing with graffiti “artists.” Las Vegas Mayor: Vandals Should Have Thumbs Cut Off.
The purpose of punishment is to deter someone from breaking the law. But it seems that our present methods are not tough enough.
I’ve been a fan of Robert Heinlein’s work since I picked up his first book. His ideas of punishment left no doubt that you broke the law and you were being punished for it. He advocated public whippings, hanging, and so on. His laws were few, but the punishments severe enough that you thought about it twice before doing it again.
I can’t say I’m for this particular form of punishment, but I’m not against it either. If you removed someones thumbs for spraying graffiti, it would certainly make it a lot harder to hold the next can of spray paint.
The object is, of course, never to have to punish someone like this. The threat of this kind of punishment should be enough to deter youths from performing this kind of activity. But then again, this is a crime that is easily committed and hardly caught. So deterrence is negligible. But it’s a step in the right direction.
We need to stop coddling the youths that run amuck causing all kinds of damage. The “Johnny can do no wrong” parents don’t help either, and if we ever do start caning, doing the parents next to the children might wake them up. But I doubt it. Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still, as Dave Ramsey says.
You never know. It’s worth a try. And for all of those people who are against this idea, just stop for a moment and think how you would feel and what you would want to do if it was your property defaced with graffiti. You’d want a lot more than their thumbs cut off, I assure you.