Did you know that an American citizen is in jail today in Nicaragua for a crime he didn't commit?

Did you know that the Nicaraguan judge was unwilling to consider the testimony of U.S. citizens as well as a prominent journalist that proved this man's innocence?

Did you know that at least one U.S. Representative's office has independently concluded that Eric Volz is innocent of the crimes he has been convicted of?

Did you know that the American media has largely ignored Eric Volz's plight?

Our friend Eric Volz is in jail today for a crime he did not commit. He needs your help.

Please contact your Congressman and ask what they are doing to intervene on Eric's behalf.

Contact your local newspaper, radio stations, and television stations and ask them why they are not covering this story and what it will take for them to start covering the story of an American citizen wrongly convicted and jailed in Nicaragua.

Additional Eric Volz websites
Friends of Eric
Friends of Eric (in Spanish)

Video: Free Eric Volz

Summary of Eric's Case
I. The Facts
II. The Arrest and Prosecution of Eric Volz
III. The Defense Case:
IV. The Court's Sentencing:

I know this is hard for us political junkies to understand, but according to the latest Pew poll, more than 75% of Americans have not thought a lot about 2008 presidential election. Pew says,

The public's lack of engagement in the campaign is reflected in how people are reacting to the large slates of potential candidates in both parties. Of the announced and highly probable candidates, only a few in each party are widely familiar. The results of in-depth questions suggest that the images of even the well-known candidates are fairly thin.

One of the most interesting results is that Democrats are paying far more attention to the race than Republicans (31% - 20%) and 46% of Democrats put forward a name of a candidate they might support, only 29% of Republicans did.

National Health Insurance? - Jane Galt makes a fantastic point about some of the problems with nationalized health care.

"Which brings up one of my perennial peeves about people advocating national health insurance or any other big programme: they point out all the ways in which public choice problems make the current system suck, and then proceed to outline their future plans as if those problems will somehow magically fall away in their system. Companies won't lobby. Voters won't demand that every stupid alternative procedure they can complain about be covered, much less react to the lack of a price signal by using more of everything. People employed in that sector won't band together to keep wages high and productivity as low as possible. Bureaucrats won't shift priorities to minimizing their own political risk, rather than maximizing the level of service provided to the public. Because it's not as if those things have happened with every single other government programme ever proposed, so why on earth would we suspect they might happen in this case?"

Slush Fund Spitzer - I have never disguised my disdain for Elliot Spitzer. So I can't say that I didn't grin a little over Captain Ed's article today about the "new" Governor Spitzer.

"So much for reform. Now that he has barely warmed his seat in Albany, he has shifted his game to that of old-time politician and spoils master. He wants to pass a budget of his liking, and he's going to buy as many of his party colleagues as he possibly can to ensure it. After running a campaign that pledged Spitzer to a course that would change "politics as usual", he seems to have discovered an affinity for slush funds in record time."

What About Bill? - Considering Expat Teacher's man-love for Bill Richardson, I couldn't help but link to this post today by Daniel Larison exposing some pretty tough issues that Richardson is going to have to deal with in an election.

"His record in Congress put him much farther to the left than he is today, his record at the U.N. was basically unremarkable and his time as head of DOE was a catastrophe.

All of this will come back to haunt a Richardson ticket, should he make it that far, and the DOE tenure especially will prove potentially devastating when it comes to the whole Chinese espionage bit. Richardson boosters probably will want to not mention his time at DOE if they can possibly help it. His opponents can just keep replaying that scene from the Senate oversight hearings as Robert Byrd declares Richardson’s career finished:

"You had a bright and brilliant career, but you will never again receive the support of the U.S. Senate for any office you seek. You have squandered your treasure."

The Case Against McCain - Yesterday Mike Allen wrote at The Politico about the leading candidates for '08 and their weaknesses. (You might want to check out Wonkeette's take on this.) About John McCain, Allen wrote:

"Even though McCain is staunchly anti-abortion, conservatives don't trust him because he voted against Bush's tax cuts and championed campaign finance reform, which many activists saw as a do-gooder intervention that hurt some of their pet organizations."

Mike, can't you just pretend to be objective here? The issue for conservatives about McCain-Feingold hasn't nothing to do with conservative "pet organizations". It has everything to do with restricting the freedom of speech. Why don't people get this?

One of the unintended consequences of the Edwards' blogger "scandal" is that bloggers now are less likely to be hired by campaigns if they've said anything inflammatory on their blogs. I'm not sure that is bad thing, but it does mean two things.

1. Intelligent, articulate folks with expertise will be less likely to blog if they believe someday they'll go into public service. This hurts the overall conversation in the blogosphere. Only those whose voices are shrillest and whose prejudices deepest will be willing to stick their heads out there, since they probably didn't plan on getting into politics anyway. The blogosphere is enriched when experts lend their knowledge to discussion and investigation (Dan Rather's use of incorrect documentation is a perfect example). However, daily individuals bring their inside knowledge to the blogosphere and all the readers are enriched.
2. It also means that folks like me, who understand that Google has a better memory than our own mother, are not going to use their own name. I've considered on several occasions to come clean on my identity, but each time I get nervous that 20 years hence, my future employer will find out that I once considered the flat tax a good idea or Bush a fascist. My identity could be figured out with some digging, but it would take more effort than it was worth at the moment. But let's be honest, a pseudonym is not the preferred method of communication. We all have real identities and real lives and pseudonyms obscure that.

So the Edwards-Blogger "scandal" has pushed me even further into my online presence. Expat Teacher I shall stay.

First there was the 28,000 SF mansion. Then there was the Blogger-Gate. John Edwards has outdone himself now and has unofficially bowed out of the 2008 Presidential race.

Peter Bart noted a few weeks ago this bit about Edwards in Los Angeles:

The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

I'm not sure how this wasn't picked up by the media before now. Looks like Edwards has been infected by the Biden "Foot-in-Mouth" Syndrome.

This slipped by me last week, but Professor Dan McFadden had some positive things to say about Part D (for its proponents, anyway). I have yet to read his analyses, but plan to now when time permits.

To quote a quote from Greg Mankiw’s blog:

“…but I think it is reasonable to say that the Part D market has performed as well as its partisans hoped, and far better than its detractors expected.” -McFadden

For full details of this story, check here.

Update:
News from Nicaragua:

The trial has now concluded.

The verdict will be read by the judge at 4:00 p.m.

Please continue to pray for the:
* judge to rule on the evidence that establishes Eric’s innocence
* safety for everyone exiting the courthouse and the town of Rivas

Last night, Expat Teacher wrote the following comment in response to my post about the John Edward's blogger (non)scandal :

Lately on GWH, there have been denunciations of the left by leftists and I think that is important in our democracy.

However, I just don't feel that the Right is being as introspective here at GWH. Considering how wayward the Republican Party has drifted, it would seem that the debate should be much fiercer than anything on the Left.

One of the first posts I ever read by Will was his post on being inside the Religious Right (anyone care to find the link?). It is a very hard hitting piece with lots of criticisms by someone who knows what he is talking about. It was compelling reading.

I've never been wooed by conservatives because I've never felt they were willing to say anything was wrong with their side. The liberals I know are much more willing to admit they have problems. Is my anecdotal evidence off, or is my experience similar to others?

I generally avoid "meta-conversations" about things going on in the blogosphere. While blogs are gaining in influence, often the discussion is much-ado about nothing. However, this latest flap over the hiring of two bloggers by the campaign of John Edwards is worth mentioning.

I won't bother going into details on the story as many other blogs have covered this (non) story ad naseum. (I especially enjoyed Rod Dreher's Myrna Minkoff comparison. Spot on, my friend!)

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this story has been the almost complete silence from left-leaning Christians in the blogosphere on this topic. Most on the left have stood by Amanda Marcotte to the point of threatening to withold support of Edwards if his campaign fires Marcotte.

I do say "almost" as I discovered last night that my old friend Faithful Progressive has stepped up to the plate in condemning Marcotte and the Edward's campaign for such a bone-headed move. Big kudos to my friend for speaking the truth, even when it isn't convenient.

I just received word that newly elected Congressman Hank Johnson of the 4th District in Georgia is about to introduce a new resolution on Iraq that aims to take a more reasoned approach to this very controversial issue.

This resolution is not aimed at condemning the Bush administration but recognizes the fact that most Americans want us out of Iraq yet recognize that we can't leave Iraq yet. A major point of this resolution is to remove American troops from street patrols, where the danger is great, and transition them into more of a support and humanitarian role.

I have copied below the text of a draft of this resolution. For more information, check out Congressman Johnson's website.

110TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
H. RES. ll

Requesting the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

RESOLUTION
Requesting the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United States Armed Forces from street patrol
duty in Iraq.

• Whereas the conflict in Iraq has become a civil war for which there is no military solution;
• Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces are targets for attacks by insurgents in Iraq, and approximately 60 percent of Iraqis support such attacks;
• Whereas members of the Armed Forces are conducting street patrols in Iraq, which has led to an increasingly high rateof casualties of members of the Armed Forces;
• Whereas the conduct of street patrols in Iraq should be the
  sole duty of trained Iraqi troops;
• Whereas members of the Armed Forces would be more effec-
  tive if they were used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq,
  protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and func-
  tions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies through-
  out Iraq;
• Whereas Iraqi politics and United States diplomacy, including
  dialogue with Iran, Syria, and other countries in the re-
  gion, are the only strategies that can end the civil war
  in Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) requests the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq by not later than the end of the six-month period beginning on the date of the adoption of this resolution, with the exception of those members of the Armed Forces who are training Iraqi troops to conduct street patrols in Iraq;

and

(2) requests the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are taken off of street patrol duty in Iraq are used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and functions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies throughout Iraq.