We're here, and we already have our seats -- on the aisle, for pregnant Becky's sake. :) Lots of nerds in costume. God bless midnight openings.

[I’ve removed the MuggleNet countdown clock that originally appeared here, as it got rather annoying after midnight, with the numbers going all crazy.]

Whee!!!

Hey, maybe I should start a wicked rumor…

Ok. I think I will.

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who’s been an employee of AT&T (and all its predecessor mobile-phone incarnations) for a long time, and he knows LOTS of people.

We had spoken just before the iPhone release a couple of weeks ago, and talked about the technology of the AT&T towers with EDGE (2.5G) and full-on 3G.

Today, we spoke of the iPhone again. This time, the 3G capability was discussed, in terms that made me actually think I should continue to wait to purchase the iPhone. From confidential sources, deep within the belly of the AT&T beast, it seems that a pre-Christmas, December 2007 release of the 3G enabled iPhone is an almost guarantee.

Don’t know if price point will change, or if they will have any added features beyond 3G, but this detail is a pretty big deal. I don’t think it’s going to be something that will be upgradeable for users of iPhone 1.0.

Anyway, take it for what it’s worth, but for me, I think I may be waiting a few more months before taking the iPhone plunge.

ABC News’s “The Blotter” — which previously reported that intelligence officials have picked up indications, similar to pre-9/11 chatter, that terrorists are planning a “spectacular” attack against the U.S. over the summer — is now reporting this:

Senior U.S. intelligence officials tell ABC News new intelligence suggests a small al Qaeda cell is on its way to the United States, or may already be here.

The White House has convened an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday afternoon to deal with the new threat.

Top intelligence and law enforcement officials have been told to assemble in the Situation Room to report on:

–what steps can be taken to minimize or counter the threat,

–and what steps are being taken to harden security for government buildings and personnel.

“It suggests they have information that the cell or cells coming this direction want to attack a government facility,” Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent and ABC News consultant, said.

Law enforcement officials say the recent failed attacks in London have provided important new clues about possible tactics.

And officials say the London attackers use of the Internet left important clues that are being used to decode other e-mails that had initially been deemed unimportant but are now taking on new significance.

A senior administration official said the level of concern of a new terror attack is now higher than it has been in some time, and the meeting this week in the situation room is one of a number that have been convened in light of the new intelligence and what happened in London.

I have a couple of questions.

First, if this is really such an “urgent” threat, why are they meeting on Thursday afternoon? Today is Tuesday.

And second, if they’re going to “assemble in the Situation Room,” shouldn’t someone alert Wolf Blitzer? :)

P.S. According to commenter “shirley” on The Blotter, this is a “transparent” attempt to distract us from the David Vitter sex scandal. Yeah, I’m just sure. Saving Louisiana’s junior senator from public embarrassment is a really high priority for our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.

Alas, many other comments are along the same lines (albeit with slightly more plausible theories regarding what they’re trying to distract us from), which is an indictment of both the Far Left’s lunacy and the Bush Administration’s failure to earn the trust of the American people.

P.P.S. Lunacy is not restricted to the Left, of course. Many of the non-conspiracy-minded commenters are calling for us to close our borders completely in response to the threat. As “Jennifer” puts it: “I’m sorry, but the only people who should be allowed in the United States are people who are born in the United States. Drastic times call for drastic measures.”

Conspiracy-mongering nut jobs versus xenophobic wackos. This is political discourse in America in the year 2007. *sigh*

UPDATE: The Blotter’s earlier report about the fear of an attack this summer, previously unconfirmed by U.S. officials, is now being confirmed, at least by Michael Chertoff’s “gut”:

U.S. counterterror officials are warning of an increased risk of an attack this summer, given al-Qaida’s apparent interest in summertime strikes and increased al-Qaida training in the Afghan-Pakistani border region.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune that he had a “gut feeling” about a new period of increased risk.

He based his assessment on earlier patterns of terrorists in Europe and intelligence he would not disclose.

“Summertime seems to be appealing to them,” Chertoff said in his discussion with the newspaper about terrorists. “We worry that they are rebuilding their activities.”

Other U.S. counterterrorism officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, shared Chertoff’s concern and said that al-Qaida and like-minded groups have been able to plot and train more freely in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border in recent months. Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding in the rugged region.

“The threat coming out of there is very real, even if there aren’t a lot of specifics attached to it,” one of the officials said.

Here’s a partial transcript of the referenced Chicago Tribune interview, and here’s the Tribune article about it.

The Georgia Supreme Court has moved up Genarlow Wilson’s hearing to July 20. It had previously been scheduled for October. (Hat tip: Kristin.)

Will the grave injustice be allowed to continue? Stay tuned.

Does anyone have any suggestions for which presidential candidate(s) — from either party, or a viable independent — I should consider supporting, given that my primary priority is a president who won’t need too much “on-the-job training” and will head a competent administration that can handle the coming crisis with Iran, the continuing war against Islamist terror (which I believe will be even an even taller order after our seemingly inevitable tail-between-our-legs withdrawal from Iraq), and other international threats as they arise? The candidates’ platforms are of course relevant, but as Glenn Reynolds says, “Whoever’s President in 2009 will do what looks right at the time, regardless of what he or she says in 2007.” So more than platforms, I’m looking for evidence of competence, relevant experience, and good instincts. I’d love a socially center-left, fiscally/regulatorily center-right administration, and I’d love to see real progress toward solutions to such problems as health care, immigration and energy policy, but my overriding concern is foreign policy and the terror war, and my overriding desire is (as George Will said) competence, rather than any particular ideology. I’m honestly not sure what the best solution to our problems is, so I’m willing to give anybody a chance (provided their ideas aren’t totally wingnutty, of course) if they can make a good case for their position and, more importantly, seem capable of executing it with the sort of competence that Bush & co. have fundamentally lacked.

Among the candidates who appear to have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president, Hillary currently seems like she might fit the bill best — and it makes me a little sick to my stomach to say that, but what are the other options? Obama is the guy whose picture you see when you look up “on-the-job training” in the dictionary, and his foreign policy ideas are distressingly vacuous. Giuliani might have the right instincts, and I at least feel confident that he could manage a domestic crisis (e.g., another Katrina, or the immediate aftermath of another attack on our soil), but he seems very unsophisticated in his understanding of the big global picture, which leaves him vulnerable — just as Bush was — to be swayed this way and that by cunning advisors (cough, cough, Cheney) whose ideas may or may not be sound. Edwards? I voted for him in the 2004 primaries as an “anti-Kerry” (Lieberman had already dropped out), but that was because I was obsessed with finding a candidate who could beat Bush, not because I thought he was a great choice. I fear he’d be something of a “blank slate,” too, much like Obama and Rudy. Same goes for Bloomberg, and anyway his nanny-statism is so bad that I might not be able to support him even if he was really good on terrorism and such. Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, I don’t know a lot about their foreign policy ideas, but their resumes don’t inspire too much confidence.

Bill Richardson has the best resume, and would need less on-the-job training than most, but he doesn’t seem to have much of a chance of actually winning. Oh, and McCain? There’s no point talking about McCain, because he is not going to be a major-party candidate for president in November 2008. I’ve never believed he would win the Republican nomination — because there was no way he was going to get enough support from, y’know, Republicans — and recent events certainly don’t suggest that I’m wrong. So if he starts making noise about running as a third-party candidate, then maybe we can talk about him, but until then, I throw him in the same pile as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, etc.: candidates who really aren’t worth talking about because they simply have no chance. If someone can make a really strong case for one of them, I might consider trying to jump ferociously on the bandwagon and do my small part to revive their sagging fortunes, but realistically, I want to know who I should consider supporting among the half-dozen or so candidates who will almost certainly make up the list of viable options.

Anyway, as you can see, my impressions of the various candidates are generally very vague and rather thinly informed at this point — as I think is true of most Americans 16 months before the general election. But I’m interested, even if my interest isn’t matched by my knowledge (yet), so I’d love to know what y’all think. In particular, if anyone can recommend some good reading material about one or more candidates who you think I should consider supporting, I’d be much obliged. My mind is entirely open here (well, not entirely — I mean, I’m not going to vote for Kucinich or Tancredo), but thus far, I’m rather underwhelmed by the possible choices.

P.S. Commenters should feel free, in answering my query, to question any of my basic assumptions, so long as they do it with facts and logical argumentation rather than pejoratives, irrelevancies, logical fallacies and unsupported truisms. Well, they’re free to use the latter forms of dialogue, too, of course — it’s just that I won’t take them seriously.

Oh, and by the way, when I talk about “our seemingly inevitable tail-between-our-legs withdrawal from Iraq,” that phrase doesn’t presuppose that withdrawal is necessarily the wrong course of action. It might be right! Perhaps defeat is inevitable, and so perhaps withdrawal now (or soon), however disastrous, is the best (or least bad) choice. But it’ll still be disastrous, both in practical terms in Iraq, and more broadly for America’s image, as it will once again show the Islamists that we can be successfully brought to our knees if they adopt the right tactics. Of course, if that was the inevitable result all along, then the war was a mistake from the beginning. But that’s a separate question. In any event, let’s keep the debate over the rightness or wrongness of withdrawal to my previous Iraq post, and keep this thread focused on what comes after withdrawal, unless you want to question my assumption that withdrawal — either very soon or fairly soon, either gradually or precipitously, but in any event, some sort of tail-between-our-legs withdrawal — is now politically inevitable.

P.P.S. Although I sort of lumped Richardson in with the “unelectables,” I actually think he’s got a better chance than the rest of ‘em. Whereas everybody knows who McCain is (it’s just that not enough of them like him), Richardson’s big problem is that most voters don’t know who the hell he is. But whereas nobody is ever going to know or care who Duncan Hunter or Mike Gravel is, Richardson has enough credibility with the media that, if only he could catch just a little bit of fire in terms of fundraising and/or grassroots support, he could easily come out of nowhere to become a viable contender. At least, I think he could. As such, I take him more seriously than the other “unelectables,” and would be very interested in any well-informed opinions about him or links to good articles about him.

As of yesterday, Becky is into her 15th week… and as of right now, there are less than 24 hours until we start watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

I plead the Fifth as to which of these milestones I am, at this particular moment in time, more excited about. ;)

Occasional Irish Trojan commenter “DC,” a.k.a. Dave Chung, a fellow USC Daily Trojan alum and proprietor of the blogrolled More Thoughts From the Shower, is a finalist in the Billboard Mobile Beat contest (written up last month by the New York Times). Basically, as part of a cell-phone promotion thingy, he gets press access to a bunch of concerts in his area, blogs about them on Billboard’s site, and competes against 25 other finalists to try and drive the most traffic to his corner of the, uh, Billboard-o-sphere. Sounds like a pretty sweet gig. Anyway, I’ve added his Billboard blog to my blogroll, along with his personal site. You can find it here. Good luck, Dave!