Word is going around that City Councilmember Charles Djou has dumped all of his staff. Reason not known. Is this in preparation for his run in 2010? [Ah, just noted Peter Boylan’s entry today in The Notebook blog.]

An article in Sunday’s Advertiser reporting on a new law to limit U.S. aid to countries that use child soldiers caught my eye for several reasons.

It’s an underreported issue, and two countries in the list of those affected are Afghanistan and Chad.

Countries listed in each year’s report will be given two years to release the children within their ranks. During that time, the only military assistance the U.S. will provide will be specifically to help in that process. If, after that two-year period, there is evidence that child soldiers are still being used or recruited, all key forms of U.S. military assistance will be cut.

According to the Department of State, the countries that could be affected currently are Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Uganda.

Chad is one of the countries benefiting from $500 million in U.S. counterterrorism training and assistance, while Afghanistan is being pitched as the new “good” war.

When I went looking for a little additional information, I was surprised to find the story was lifted word for word from a press release from World Vision, which was pitching interviews with Joseph Mettimano, the staffer quoted in the story.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that week that a Seattle ordinance giving the chief of police discretion to prohibit street parades and demonstrations is unconstitutional, according to a story in the Seattle Times. The full decision can be found here.

This musing is from MidWeek columnist Bob Jones:

There was an interesting discussion in the Sunday New York Times about using the term “terrorist” to describe those who commit horrible acts that do terrorize people.
I don’t have a problem with the noun but I do have one with the inference it demands of readers and viewers.

If somebody sends out anthrax letters willy-nilly in the mail or walks into a mall and randomly shoots people for no particular grudge or political aim, that’s terrorism to me. It’s about scaring people for the hell of it.

But Palestinian or Iraqi suicide bombers or those Pakistani attackers in Mumbai are classic political extremists seeking to either upset or reverse some political process. I prefer to call them political militants or extremists, attackers, or just about anything but terrorist. Journalists calling people on a political mission — even a deadly one — terrorists is taking sides. You’re making their cause as well as their act the Black Hat.

Most of us despite the killing of innocents. I’m not suggesting we coddle those who do that. But why not call the Mumbai guys “attackers” while their association is unknown and then “Pakistani militants (or extremists)” when it is known?

Were the Minutemen terrorists (we weren’t yet at war when they ambushed the British troop column near Concorde)? How about the people at the barricades during the French revolution? Somebody assaulted an Iolani Palace employee during a brief occupation of the place this year. Was he a terrorist?

Or are you only a terrorist after you kill or hurt a certain number of people, and what is that number?

I’ve never liked labels of convenience.

Okay. Now I’m going back to bed. Again.