31 YEARS ON THE LAM

Weird-ass story of the day, out of Rhode Island: man escaped from a prison in South Carolina on Christmas Day 1980. He is arrested in Rhode Island.

His crime:

He was sentenced to 11 months in prison in November 1980 for domestic non-payment of child support.

This scofflaw had to be taken down by "members of the state police violent fugitive task force."

Armin Christian, 65, is being extradited to South Carolina to face the consequences. You can breathe easier now. A very bad, bad man is back behind bars.

THE KHALIDI CON

Barack Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi is no surprise, even though it is October. The frantic right wing of the GOP wants to turn that friendship into a last-play game changer that propels John McCain and Sarah Palin to a destiny that is not dusty.

Before Tuesday you will hear more than you ever thought possible about Khalidi and how he ties in to scoundrel William Ayers, the former bomber linked to Obama in a convoluted political version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Added bonus: Media cover-up! Stop the presses! Roll the breaking news animation! Newsteam, assemble!

The conservative media and its pundits are acting like they've hooked King Kahuna. They see Khalidi as the best way to turn niggling doubts about Barack Obama's unusual name and heritage into fear. To them, because Khalidi is pro-Palestinian and a critic of Israel, he's a scary bad man who might hurt you and everything you love, including your country, the flag, apple pie and that new song by Pink.

And right there with the terrorists/guys with weird names is the evil media, covering up the secret ties between Obama and Khalidi because reporters are having Obamagasms at the thought of a black Democrat in the White House.

Listen to the right's latest shout: The Los Angeles Times is trying to suppress proof that Obama and Khalidi are thisclose. The proof is a videotape of a dinner, five years ago, where Obama paid tribute to Khalidi and his wife.

The McCain camp says the Times is "intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi."

National Review pants over the Times' "refusal" to hand over the tape.

The Times has a copy of the vid and won't hand it over to the demanders. That's absolutely true. But how does everyone know the Times has the tape? Because the newspaper already told us what's on it.

The Times published a long story about Obama's friendship with Khalidi. It's been out there since April. You can read it right here. It's true: Google can be your friend.

The lede on that newspaper story comes from the video. So does this description of what Obama said:

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. ... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

So clear now, eh? Obama is the Antichrist. Damn the Times for trying to cover up the Khalidi scandal and refusing to give the American people what they need in these last hours of Vote 2008 -- red meat to rip, and more political ads with grainy images of Men You Should Fear.

Another distraction in what's supposed to be an election about ideas, not innuendo. Meanwhile, the Phil Spector retrial starts Wednesday, and Court TV is sorely missed. Trial coverage on the rebranded truTV ends at 2 p.m. in the Midwest. Any hope of seeing Spector in all his glory, dashed.

SULU PULLS AN ELLEN

George Takei, the actor who played Mr. Sulu on the original Star Trek series, is getting hitched to his longtime partner.

The BBC reports:

Takei, 71, said he and Brad Altman were going through the "delicious dilemma" of where to marry.

The actor and 54-year-old Mr Altman have been together for 21 years.

"We can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily," Takei wrote on his website. ...

On Thursday, California's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

But opponents of the decision said they would seek an amendment to the state constitution, which would override the ruling.

Following the Supreme Court's decision to legalise same-sex marriage, comedian Ellen DeGeneres announced plans to marry her girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

Does this mean the Sulu in "Mirror, Mirror" was straight?

JUDGES CAN FINALLY JUDGE

Russell Clark was a federal judge when he called us in for a chat, more than a decade ago. He wanted to talk about drugs. Crack cocaine, to be specific.

Clark had to sentence several young gang members to federal prison for selling crack in Springfield. He had no say, no input in the sentences; federal sentencing guidelines called for specific punishments. If Clark pulled a downward deviation -- going below the guidelines -- the U.S. attorney would immediately appeal and a new judge would impose what the prosecutor wanted.

Clark was especially anguished because crack sentences were much harsher than those handed out for powder cocaine sales. It's still that way. Crack is a 100-to-one drug. Sell one ounce of crack, get the same sentence you would for selling 100 ounces of powder.

The judge thought the guidelines and crack sentences were wrong. He thought that what he was doing was madness. "But I have no choice," Clark said.

The world became a little less insane on Monday. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges can use their discretion when issuing sentences. And the high court made it clear that harsher sentences for crack are wack.

Linda Greenhouse's piece in The New York Times is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the issue. The essence:

It is now clear that while judges should consult the guidelines, they are just one factor among others and do not carry any special weight. It is also clear that an appeals court must have a very good reason of its own to displace the trial judge’s judgment.

Russell Clark died in 2003. He would have enjoyed Monday's decisions.

SUPREMES ACCEPT VOTER ID CASE

Indiana requires voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting their ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear arguments on whether the law goes too far.

Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times has the money graf:

As in many constitutional disputes, the choice of standard will drive the case. If strict scrutiny applies, the state will have to show not just that voter fraud is a valid reason for requiring identification, but that impersonating a registered voter is such a serious problem in Indiana that it justifies a remedy that will predictably deter members of identifiable groups from voting at all.

Missouri's Supreme Court struck down a Voter ID law last year. The SCOTUS decision should come down next summer -- too late for the regular legislative session, but if the big dogs uphold Indiana's law, look for Missouri lawmakers to try to force a special session so they can pass a similar law and get it activated by the November election.

Supporters of Voter ID laws say we live in a society that requires identification; the "you have to show ID to write a check" argument is shopworn (and fast becoming outdated as people use debit cards to swipe away their money without every flashing a license). Writing a check isn't a right. Neither is driving. Both privileges require showing identification when asked. Voting is a right. Should government force you to show ID to exercise a right?

SCOMO: NO MORE SKY'S THE LIMIT

An update to our earlier post about the riches being gathered by the two leading candidates for Missouri governor:

The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated campaign contribution limits. The ruling was unanimous, and written by Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. The Associated Press reports:

The court, in a unanimous decision, overturned a lower judge who had thrown out a fundraising ban for elected officials and challengers during the legislative session but kept intact the overall repeal of Missouri’s individual contribution limits.

The Supreme Court said the legislative history of the bill indicated lawmakers would not have repealed contribution limits if the donation blackout period was not in effect.

The court noted that when the measure was debated by the Senate, it considered — and rejected — an amendment that would have allowed unlimited contributions without a blackout period.

“That the two provisions were inseparably connected and dependent upon each other is conclusively proven by the fact that the Senate amendment to decouple the provisions failed,” the Supreme Court said.

Still in the air: What happens to the big bucks already collected by Matt Blunt and Jay Nixon?

Also without answer: Is Stephen Limbaugh an activist judge?

BONGALICIOUS

Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court heard a free-speech case involving a student holding a sign proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The Washington Post reports that Justice Samuel Alito -- a pivotal vote -- seems to be a saving grace for First Amendment fanboys and girls:

"I'm a very strong believer in the First Amendment and the right of people to speak and to write," Alito said in response to a question of "where's the line" on what can be posted on the Internet. "I would be reluctant to support restrictions on what people could say."

The newest justice, who was protective of speech rights as an appellate judge, added that "some restrictions have been held to be consistent with the First Amendment, but it's very dangerous for the government to restrict speech."

That sound you hear is the faint "bong" of liberal heads exploding at the thought of conservative Sam Alito being on their side.