Go-Going

Heading off for vacation and I doubt I will find much time to blog. So much going on too, Cheney's dunk, the millitary v. wonkette, Jersey came out of the closet, Hasselbeck lays down the Law, oh my.

I'll do what I can.

Small but important...

Just like Alan Greenspan!

The former Brainiac in Chief noted that

"We're beginning to see some move from the dollar to the euro, both from the private sector ... but also from monetary authorities and central banks,"

Beyond the fact that its a rare direct statement from the former Convoluted Speaker in Chief, this little sentence is worth watching. If the Euro starts eating into the dollar as the monetary unit of choice, less dollars will be bought, increasing our interest rates, which makes it more difficult to sustain Cheney's guiding economic principle, "deficit's don't matter." We finance our debt through the world's use of the dollar as the denomination of choice. Any ripple in that could drastically affect our economy through increased interest rates (if no one wants the dollar at a particular interest rate, the rate must go up to attract buyers). I suppose the good news is that excess dollars in the global market means a dollar devaluation, making our exports cheaper. However, a dollar devaluation also increases the cost of imports (but not Chinese imports, China's currency is pegged to the dollar - meaning as the dollar devalues, so does the Huan. This also largely offsets our export gain as we cannot match China's cost of production). Cheap goods, as you all know, are the reason that American's are enjoying a higher standard of "stuff" living, while real earnings are flat or falling. Take cheap goods away and that changes. Will the increased cost of imports be off-set by more jobs created for exports - I doubt it, we just don't make much anymore, and like I said, we cannot compete with Chinese manufacturing.

The concern for the dollar as the global currency has been out there since the Euro's debut. After the Euro's rocky start, this concern abated. But as W went on his historic spending spree, the concern returned. To hear Greenspan, the Former Evadist in Chief, directly address it means the concern is becoming reality. Sorry Stalin, but we have to get our spending under control.

Minutemen and the fence

Thought this was a solid response to a negative article from Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist (of border watching fame, not of Revolutionary War fame - that or he's using a heckuvalot of botox). Yes, he gets a little emotional at points, but he's responding to an article called "Minutemen have a right to be idiotic," not really a neutral, fact based starter article, see my post below 'bout morons. If someone were to write an article called, "Hydrabloggers have a right to be idiotic" I may get a tad emotional too.

Anywho, I honestly don't see all the hub-bub about the Minutemen. Thankfully, I have many, many, many, and well, many better things to do in my average day than sit out in the hot sun and hope to see someone breaking the law. But from what I've gathered its mostly peaceful, with MM just calling up the border patrol and reporting what they've seen. I haven't heard of anyone tackling any suspects, throwing rocks, playing cop, netting, vigilanting (viglilanticizing?), tripping, or giving wedgies to potential illegal immigrants. The way I see it, its more like a huge neighborhood watch program, and everyone loves those guys. Yeah its boring, and yeah I'd never do it, but so what? (Ed. note: Apparently I have 16 posts with the word "immigration" in them. If your bored, but not Minuteman bored, you can search the Hydrablog for my opinions - and yes 16 posts on immigration shows that I may have a touch extra-time in my day...smarty.)

If you boil the fat out of it, these folks are mad that other people are blatantly breaking the law and are lawfully doing something about it. Is that now a crime?

To me, the much more radical (dare I say "idiotic") move is to build a huge, massively expensive, totally useless wall. Thank you W for signing just such a bill today.

New Poll, 20-25% of Amercians are morons

Whenever I start to wonder how things in this country can get so screwed up, a poll comes about and hits me in the head. A new CNN poll says the following regarding Civil Rights.

While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration has not gone far enough.

Yes, I'm clearly in the 39% group, and empirically, 34% seems about right for folks who think, "Hey, we're at war, I expect to lose some CL's." But the fact that there are 25% who think that W hasn't gone far enough? Seriously? There are people out there who feel the Feds should have more power, and We The People less? Some folks are feeling a little too free?

This curmudgeonly group (Lousy kids and their freedom - Stay off my yard!) must also make up a large part of the 20% of respondents who think the size of the government has gone down. If any reader out there is part of the group of American's who think the government has gone down, please, please write me. I'm dying to know how this can be. For one, we're fighting two wars. By default, the size of Government has to go up. The only rationale I can come up with is that this group has taken a long cool drink of the "The GOP is in charge, they shrink government" Kool-Ade.

The 25% and 20% group remind me of a post I read by Tom Tomorrow (no, the link doesn't go to the post, he doesn't have a "search this blog" feature so I couldn't find the exact post - I'm sure this is some kind of blogger fox paws, but I prefer to think its just my rebel nature). Anyway, his point was that about 20% of American's will believe just about anything you tell them. Kind of makes sense. Looking at just about any poll, there's always about 20% that believe something that's not true, or just plain weird. So I say, to get a handle on what the country's really thinking, you have to look at the numbers above the 20% threshold. And yes, I get the fact that I've taken my memory of a random person's opinion in a blog and added my own little kicker on top, rendering this whole point about as stable as my 85 year old grandmother on roller-skates...on quick-sand...in a gale force wind...with Stalin Malone poking her with a stick (quit tormenting her Stalin, you've made your point!).

But really, if 20% of American's really think that the size of government has decreased, then those of us who want to actually decrease it start at a huge disadvantage.

Ummm, actaully Mr. Will, its at least the third prohibition

George Will has a piece in Newsweek about the new anti-internet gambling bill that W recently signed. I've discussed it here, here, and here (the smart, but illegal, bet is that I'll mention it again) and Mr. Will and I tend to agree. I don't have much more to add except to point out that internet gambling isn't Prohibition V.2, that title belongs to the "War on Drugs." V.1 failed, V.2 failed, but no one can admit it yet, and V.3 will fail too (bet on it).

Two quick hits. One, Mr. Will, and other's like him, need to shed this, "I'm from the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party" schtick. Just be a Libertarian. I did, and who doesn't want to be like me? Just commit (political and career suicide?) to the cause.

Second, quick anecdote about the internet gambling ban. I happened to be talking to one of the A list Texas Hold-em players and, since I can't really compare gambling stories, I brought up that the House passed the ban, and that Frist was a big fan, and being Senate Majority Leader and all it looked like this thing was heading for law. Did he think the ban would affect the Poker Bubble? Well, after looking at me like I was sooooo naive, he assured me that it would never pass, and that no less the Phil Gordon had looked into it and decided that there was no way it could happen, too much money at stake. We had a brief debate, but I will forever rue that I didn't say, "Wanna bet?" Also, he said there was no poker bubble. All I'm sayin' is that if poker was a stock, I'd be short.

Almost Famous...

Hey everyone, we were just picked up by The Libertarian Blog Place! (and by "picked-up" I mean, I wrote and asked to be placed in) Not only that, but we were named "Best New Blog." OK, they didn't actually say it, but I'm tellin' you those hips don't lie.

*Not one, but two music references. The H-Blog works on many, many levels, maybe even...42. Hah, now that's three.

Bake me a cake as fast as you can

Most of this Yahoo article is about the rats abandoning the ship, not their words, but that's how I'd feel if I were W. But I want to focus on a little throw-away section about Bakers findings and reccomendations for Iraq.

Sen. James A Baker III, a former secretary of state who has a long history of loyalty to the Bush family, has said the Iraq Study Group — which he leads with former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana — will wait until after the Nov. 7 elections to present its recommendations.

I like Baker, always have. And while I understand his postition from a "help the GOP" position, I have to say that from a "what's best for the country" perspective, I disagree with his move. As I understand it, in America the people have the power. We delegate this power to a few folks to handle those affairs (not those affairs Foley, Clinton, Gingrich, etc, etc), while we concentrate on our day-to-day lives. That being the case, shouldn't We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...sorry got caught up in the moment, Neil Diamond was playing and everything.

Where was I? Oh yeah. Since we have the power and repsonsibilty for running this nation, shouldn't we know what these options are? Shouldn't we have time to digest and debate them? Shouldn't we be able to know where our elected officials stand on these matters before we elect them? Look, I'm not saying that Bakers coming down from the mountain with the plan, but these people work for us. Can you imagine a company in crisis, where the manager says to the CEO, hire me first, then I'll tell you what I think of things? Releasing the report now isn't playing politics with it, not releasing it is.

Speacial thanks to the United Italics Foundation for their generous help with this post.

"What? Nooo. He said what? You're crazy!"

In a follow-up to an earlier post, China now says Kim never said the "S" word. "These reports are certainly not accurate. We haven't heard any information that Kim Jong Il apologized for the test."

In summary, Kim goes nuclear, maybe says sorry, China maybe backs sanctions (but warns against "pressuring" North Korea), and...well, "and?" I'm still waiting. This seems like a fairly big deal, and not only is Kim back-peddling from his apology, but he's still demanding the same things as before, and our "coalition" is already fraying. It's been, what, a week? Are we now the most powerless superpower in history?

OMAHA 911!

In a move that would make Anti-Smoker in Chief NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg blush, the people of Omaha, Nebraska have decided that enforcing the city's no smoking ordinance is so important that they want citizens to call 911 to report violations.

police consider it just as serious as reporting a road accident, homicide or assault

Well smoking can kill you, and second hand smoke can kill those around you so...quick, alert S.W.A.T. there's a smoker on the loose!

Funny, I was taught that you report emergency crimes through 911 and non-emergency crimes through the police department's local number. But really, it's hard for me to imagine that someone smoking in a restaurant is something the manager can't handle. Do they really need to tie up a 911 operator for this? Apparently Douglas County Emergency director Mark Conrey is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind for he warns that, "trivializing the 911 telephone system to report by-law and ordinance infractions threatens its reliability and could compromise response times."

All hail the new king!

PS. Found this at "Dispatch Monthly" (I love that there's such thing as Dispatch Monthly).

Speaking of internet

Google (have you heard of it?) set up a PAC to make donations to politicians. Big deal you say? Hear hear. Unfortuneately, they committed the grave sin of donating to, gasp, Republicans. And just because every major company in the US donates to both sides of aisle (just about the best return on investment a company can make), doesn't mean the lefties are going to let this slide. Huffington Post's own Eat The Press, runs the following on the front page of the blog, "Google Now Donating to GOP Candidates" (is that really news?) with "Google's New PAC Skews Republican" as the article title. I also like the color logo they created (its the picture at the top of this blog).

I'm sorry but I don't see any of this as newsworthy. The GOP controls the House, Senate and White House. A company as large as Google has to give money in politics, and the best place to give money is to those in charge. My bet is that if the Dems win (no sure thing that), then Google's PAC will give more money to the Dems who will then Chair the relevant committies. One of the real truisms in politics is that sitting politicians get more money than challengers, and one of life's truisms is that winners get more than losers. It would actaully be news if Google didn't understand that.

Ummm, see there's this thing called the internet and...

W went on ABC's "This Week," and during an interview with the Steven City's own George Stephanopolis and say's

Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,”

Then Think Progress does my work and list's all the times he actually said, "We’ll stay the course."

My point with this post isn't to be mean to W, rather it brings to mind something I think when I see politician's saying they didn't say something. In this day and age, everything a politician says is on record somewhere and one doesn't need access to a news archive to find it. With the internet, anyone can prove you said something you say you didn't if you did say it (thank you Chrissy Snow for your help with that last sentence). You just can't pretend you didn't say something anymore, your going to get caught, your going to look dumb, or worse, look like a liar.

That's almost two years in dog time!

St. Charles, Missouri passed a new doggie-doo law. What's the big deal? Well this nugget of a law makes it a crime to be caught walking a dog without "waste removal equipment." The punishment you ask? $500, or up to three months in jail. Three months! If I'm living in St. Charles, no chance that now, my "waste removal system" is "my hand and pocket."

What gall's me 'bout this article is the cavelier manner in which local politicians treat liberty. This city council seriously thinks not carrying a doggi-doo bag merits sending someone to jail. Beyond the fact that, as Americans, we're supposed to value freedom above most else, does the city council really think it makes economic sense in terms of cost of trial and the cost of jail v. some dog poop on the grass? Plus their action has the added benefit putting the hurdle for jailable offenses so low as to be irrelevant. Seriously, if the city can send someone to jail for not carrying a pooper-scooper what else is jailable? Running a stop-sign can kill someone, surely that should merit some jail time. How about speeding, running an "orange" stop-light, smoking in the non-smoking section, littering, j-walking, or giving away the secret ending to Sixth Sense?

But it's easy to see how the City Council feels like they can get away with this law. I was amazed at the people's complacentcy in talking about the new law. Everyone focused on picking up the doo, not the fact that you can go to jail for it. Jail! Have we lost all sense of "punishment fitting the crime?" I mean, no wonder we have over 2 million people in our jails. Can you imagine answering the question "what're you in fer?" "I'm in for not carrying a plastic baggie to pick up after my yorkie on walks, bro."

The great dem chicken count

Drudge has a brief on a Barron's article under the headline, "MAGAZINE SHOCK: REPUBLICANS WILL HOLD CONGRESS," Barron's full article here (subscription required). I put it here for the following reasons.



One, Barron's, and their parent company The Wall St. Journal typically fall on the "money doesn't matter in politics" camp, but part of their analysis of the GOP holding on is "based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data." They're not alone, most handicappers us late season media buy's when looking at who will win. This isn't a "ah-ha" post about how Barron's is going back on itself, rather can we all agree that money's very important, then work on a solution? Personally, I favor the NASCAR method. I think Politicians should have to wear sewn on logo's of their donors. It would much more helpful for me, as a viewer, if as Senator has a big STP patch on his jacket when he stands in front of the camera talking about how important it is to give more incentives to the Oil industry. Anyway, this isn't a post on campain finance reform, so off we go.



Two, as I've discussed on this blog, gerrymandering makes changes harder in the House. For a real barometer of how the nation is feeling, you have to look to the Senate. As statewide elections, Senators cannot hide in safe districts. However, they do have the money barrier for protection. Sitting Senator's have large war chests and it cost's more to run a Senate campaign than a House campaign. Still, a big move in the Senate will be telling. Not neccessarily from a policy stand-point if the GOP holds on, but definitely from as a referendum on current policy and vision.



Third, this article on Pelosi shows she has a much different view of the Novemember results. Yes, like the White House, Pelosi needs to project a sense of confidence that the Dems will win, but most of the Dems gain in the polls seems to come from GOP gaffes, rather than Dem moves. While moving up in the polls surely feels good, relying on opponent mistakes rather than you're own moves means you are squarely at the mercy of them figuring it out in time to pull out a victory. As I've said before, Pelosi needs to win first, then she can worry about Speaker Pelosi. However, if the Dems don't take the House, she should be fired as minority leader. Period.

Read my lips, "No new tests!"

Dear Leader says "sorry" to China for that "whole nuclear bomb thing, "Yo man it was a crazy day. Won't happen again bro'." Quick aside, if I were going to write a letter to Kim, would I start it, "Dear Dear Leader?" Anyway, he also say's he won't be testing anymore bombs. Not to be a big ol' cynic, but as I recal India only had one test, as did Pakistan so what did he really give up? Once you've tested you have lots of data and proof that at least something is going right. Assuming he only has a few nukes, wouldn't we want him testing them to get rid of 'em? Kind of like asking someone with a six-shooter to prove the gun works by firing it in the air. Pull it off six times and you don't need to shoot it out of his hand.

Also, an interesting piece from Newsweek writer John Barry (who also had a heckuva jump shot) about why using military force against Kim is a bad idea. I put it here because I think it helps illustrate the US' tactical position. The way I see it, either attack now before he's fully nuclear (may already be too late) or accept that only diplomacy will work in the future (which really means we agree to be forever blackmailed by North Korea). Its probably an easy, but sterile, analysis. Figure out how much that blackmail will cost us over the next several decades v. the cost of attacking now. I do think you have to throw in some kind of probability adjusted cost of him selling nukes to Iran or some terrorist as well. It's interesting, Kim puts W's "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" doctrine to the extreme test. A fight there, according to Barry, would be massive, but a fight here (meaning nuclear attack by an enemy who has NuKes) would be even more catastrophic from a US stand-point.

Life long blackmail with the possibility that some NuKes get into the wrong hands v. a very expensive and high casualty fight now. Not sure I like either scenario. We have to find a way to change the game.

This cloak of invisibility will make it much easier for my 10th level thief to back-stab for double damage

The new messiah

Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says,

"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country,"

So God told Rumsfeld to torture innocent people? Well then, who am I, but a humble blogger to question that? However,scanning by copy of the good book, I'm having a hard time finding the part where Jesus says to torture your enemies. Must be in the next draft.

Also, I'm not sure how well good ol' Pete will be at questioning and advising Rummy, what with Rummy's direct line to God.

*Disclaimer. I'm really uncomfortable with this post. I don't like talking about religion, I think its a private matter. I also don't want to imply that Rumsfeld is not a religious person, or demean his beliefs or way of carrying himself as a Christian. But I just couldn't let this quote go for two reasons. One, Rumsfeld’s insistence on torture, which any reader of this blog knows I abhor, and two, when anyone believes that a leader takes direct orders from God, that's sketchy ground for any American, when that person is, themselves, a leader it's really, really sketchy ground.

No Shiite, He's a Sunni?

Jeff Stein of the NYT writes an article about his admittedly "Gotcha" question to various congressfolks like Rep. Terry Everett (R-AL) vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence and Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA) Chair of the House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information.

The question is simple, "Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?"

The answer, "Ummmm, not so much." Perhaps not unexpected, but depressing none-the-less. I'm not a big fan of this congress (and I'm not alone, unique, or special), but I do have some naive hope that the folks in charge understand the basics of what's going on. I don't know why what with Sen. Pete Sessions (R-AL) proudly proclaiming, "I don't know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know." Ahhh, checks and balances at its finest. Also, what's going on with Alabama Politicians?

Bottom line, if it's your job to know these things you should. At least the above Reps (sans the proudly ignorant Sessions) had the honesty to admit they don't know and ask the question. I remember years ago when a group asked some Congressfolks about the travesty happening in Freedonia. Not surprisingly, some bit, but as I recall, they got angry. Oh, well progress is progres I guess.

In wrap-up, Rep. Everett says,

“Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”

Welcome to the show.

You know six of one...

Media headline quick hit edition. Within one day of each other.

From the Think Progress 10/17

Cheney: ‘General Overall Situation’ In Iraq Is Going ‘Remarkably Well’

From The Daily Telegraph 10/18

Iraq a helluva mess: Baker

Things sure can change in hurry.

Foley follow-up

Florida Judge Janet Ferris (anyone, anyone) ruled today that Mark Foley's replacement, Joe Negron, cannot place signs at polling places letting voters know that due to a technicality a vote for Foley is really a vote for Negron.

Two things.

One, as I've said before, I think this is a bad decision. I understand that it's probably electioneering in the techinical sense, but voter's have a right to know what's going on (heyyyyy-ayyyy-ayyyy).

Two, before neoGOP's get all upity, read Judge Ferris' reasoning.

"The problem with posting or delivering such notices at polling places, which would speak only to the District 16 Congressional race, is that the legislature did not authorize them,"

This is exactly what the neoGOP's want. A judiciary subserviant to the Legislature. No activist judge she. This is what happens when one assumes that the Legislature can write laws covering all scenarios. The people lose.

I just saw my life pass before my eyes...

Battle of the bands dude. All played out in album cover wars.

Democrats just don't understand

OK, here's the situation, my parents went away on a weeks vacation - oh, wait, I'm not talking about that situation, I'm talking about the the Dems having an extraorinary opportunity to win an unwinnable GOP gerrymandered seat in FL. Yes the very seat that former Congressman Mark Foley held. So all of us at home are thinking, "There's no way they can blow this one. It's o-v-e-r. Right?" Well gentle reader, never underestimate the ability of the Dems to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory.

They've decided that informing voters of the fact that a vote for Foley is a vote for replacement GOP candidate Joe Negron at the actual polling sites is electioneering, and are suing to block any such notification. Maybe they're technically right, but man are they missing the bigger picture.

So let's look at why this is a bad move.

1. Always good to remind voters that you're the party of frivolous law-suits.
2. Always good to give your unknown opponent free airtime.
3. 3 above works best if the free airtime makes you look bad.
4. Always good to look like you're trying to confuse the voters and undermine the election process.
5. 4 above works best if you can look hipocritical by using arcane voting laws to skew an election in a state where you are still angry that the other side used arcane voting laws to skew an election.
6. Always good to cede the moral high ground. Putting the need to win above what's right for the voters plays directly against the powerful arguement that GOP leadership put winning above what's right for the voters.
7. Always good to look like you're trying to really, really, super really trying to take advantage of a situation.

I honestly thought this was an easy win for the Dems, but I'm starting to think they might blow it. Hmmmm, I can say the same thing at the national level about taking the House and Senate.

I'm always asking how any conservative can support the neoGOP, I also wonder how any registered Dem can support this unbelievably inept Democratic Party?

I need to think of a short-hand for the Democratic Party, like neoGOP. WeenieDems? LoserDems? I've got an idea. A free one-year subscription to the Hydrablog for any reader that comes up with the winning name.

Fox commits an error

Fox fired MLB broadcaster Steve Lyons after Game 3 of the ALCS. The reason, he made "racially insensitive remarks" about Lou Piniella who is hispanic. The remarks?

Piniella said that slugger Frank Thomas and Eric Chavez needed to contribute, comparing Scutaro's production to finding a "wallet on Friday" and hoping it happened again the next week.

Later, Piniella said the A's needed Thomas to get "en fuego" -- hot in Spanish -- because he was currently "frio" -- or cold. After Brennaman praised Piniella for being bilingual, Lyons spoke up.

Lyons said that Piniella was "hablaing Espanol" -- butchering the conjugation for the word "to speak" -- and added, "I still can't find my wallet."

"I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit too close to him now," Lyons continued.

Were those comments bad enough for immediate dismissal? From my seat, no. Sadly, as I watched the A's get swept (I thought this was their year - my fav team), Lyons' comments didn't even register with me as racial - in fact, they didn't register at all. Furthermore, even after reading the article I still don't see it. If butchering Spanish conjugations is racist then I, for one, have committed many racist offenses. Sorry. If butchering any language's conjugations is racist, then we have a nation full of racists. I grew up in the south, I butcher English on a daily basis, do I hate myself?

The thing is, I've been cruising the net and I can't find a single instance of anyone being offended by his comments. Most post game wrap-ups just talk about the game, some Baseball bloggers have old post's about Lyons' being an idiot, but no mention, that I could find, about his racist comments. For example, Rush Limbaugh's comments about Eagle's Quarterback Donovan McNabb lit up the airwaves immediately after he made them. One could easily debate just how racist those comments were, but at least there was a reaction. [Quick note, that last comment was actually not one of my many digs at Mr. Limbaugh. He was just at the center of the last comparable incident I could remember]

If they were really that bad, someone in wrap-up would have mentioned them. Not to be insensitive, but if Lyons' comments are racist then the bar for racism has gotten pretty low.

Now Kim will face the full force of a world united against him!

The net punishment for North Korea's Kim Jong Il for developing and testing nukes (along with the testing long range delivery systems) is..."a little diet."

Ohhhhh man, and I thought W was crazy mad with his pro-torture beliefs, but now I've seen just how far this man is willing to go to defend this country. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm scared for those that would harm us. That's right yo, W slapped a ban on luxury goods on Kim - KAPOW. W hit Kim so hard Kim's ma-ma cried.

That's right folks. The US response to North Korea going nuclear was a UN Security Council resolution that creates sanctions on luxury goods. Yup, now it will be somwhat harder for Kim to enjoy a nice glass of chianti as he plots his next move. OK, it looks stupid and feeble at first glance, but it's subtle. Wine is linked to lower heart disease. Keeping Kim from having any access to those potent anti-oxidants will likely shorten his life. See, it's brilliant! All America's enemies will get encouraged by Kim thumbing his nose at W, but they will be missing the diabolically clever move of slowly working on his heart. Then it will be their turn

Earlier Saturday President Bush urged the adoption of a "strong" U.N. Security Council resolution, saying "peace and security in northeast Asia and a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula" are the goals. "We will do what is necessary to achieve these goals. We will support our allies in the region. We will work with the United Nations, and together we will ensure that North Korea faces real consequences if it continues down its current path," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

That's right folks, the gloves are off. Next up? A ban on superhero action figures.

Oh God, just saying it scares me.

What is up in CT?

Christopher Shays, (R)CT, fresh off reminding us all that serial, willful pedophelia is not as bad as Chappaquiddick, now says that Abu Ghraib wasn't torture, but rather a "sex ring." Later, in defending his comments he says, "...It wasn't primarily about torture" (emphasis mine).

One, why bother running to the defense of Abu Ghraib? He acknowledges that torture has happened at other prisons, so why draw the line here? US guards have been tried and found guilty, the picutres were so bad they couldn't be released, and up until Shays' recent comments, the only person I recall defending Abu Ghraib is Rush Limbaugh, but he's an actor so it's not really the same as an actual law maker defending it. So why wouldn't Shays just say something about it being a terrible incident, but it was an isolated event and those responcible have been punished, the US needs to do a better job of discussing its successes in Iraq, media bias, etc. But to defend something that all but the most loyal Republican's can tolerate, and only then through rose colored glasses, is just weird. Without going into each picture, I've seen some that clearly weren't sexual and had lots of blood and other nastieness going on. So let's just focus on the "sex ring" comment.

I'm not sure why no one in the debate, or any reporter in follow-up later, pointed out that if you look in the Torture Bill that Shays voted for there are provisions under "Prohibited Conduct" labled (G) Rape and (H) Sexual Assault or Abuse. Since my bet is the prisoners were not willfully engaging in the activity, I'm assuming they were forced, thus violating the provision in the very Torture Bill he voted for. So I'm not really sure what is point is. Shays is making the rattled comments of a desperate man.

So I started wondering why and found this. He's in a real squeaker with his opponent Diane Farrell (D), leading her only 44-40 with 16% undecided. For a sitting congressman, the way districts are gerrymandered this is enough to make a man like Shays panic.

And he is.

Whatd'ya know, Hillary know's the Clinton backpeddle too

Hillary Clinton, D(NY), appears to be backpeddling from her extremely well worded anti-torture stance.

Going from a September 28 Senate floor speech,

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.

To a October 11 meeting where she said,

She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.

"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."

Here's what happened to me. When I first read Hillary's initial statement I was pretty excited. I actually thought, "If this is Hillary, I can see myself voting for her." But almost as that thought finished, I thought, "Careful Hercules (that's what I call myself), she's the same person who was silent on the Iraq war and PATRIOT Act, until both became unpopular. Why don't you just wait and see."

Mostly I'm glad I didn't blog a glowing comment on her speech, and how she may be votable after-all because Stalin would have had my lunch. She's hedging herself a full two years before the election. She didn't even make it a full month of conviction on the torture issue. Isn't that some sort of record? Waffling two years before an election and only one month before an empassioned speech on the Senate floor.

Beyond everything else, I think this is her biggest problem. She's far to caluculating. Even with Bill, you had a sense that under all the politics he cared. Not so with Hillary. It's just about getting the title.

Count me out.

NuKe (Is that too subtle. NK for North Korea, but made to spell nuke?)

So NK tested a nuke. Looks like it was probably a small one, but I think we can all agree they won't stay small (and that small's not neccessarily a failure, this type of nuke has to be small to fit on a war-head).

The question before the US is, "What now?"

Lot's of tough talk from W, but his proposals seem, well, weak. Here's what I've read so far. This,

The latest U.S. proposal, obtained by The Associated Press Wednesday night, dropped Japanese demands to prohibit North Koreans ships from entering any port, and North Korean aircraft from taking off or landing in any country. These sanctions would likely face strong Russian and Chinese opposition.

The resolution would still require countries to freeze all assets related to North Korea's weapons and missile programs. But a call to freeze assets from other illicit activities such as "counterfeiting, money-laundering or narcotics" was dropped. So was a call to prevent "any abuses of the international financial system" that could contribute to the transfer or development of banned weapons.

And,

a revised five-page text obtained by Reuters shows softer language on cargo inspections...Additionally, the resolution would impose a travel ban on people who support Pyongyang's weapons programs, Reuters reported.

Let's look at these ideas closer.

Freezing assests relating to the weapons and missle programs is good. But how do you identify those exact assets? Does Kim put, "From Nuclear transfer to Iran" in the memo section of the check he deposits? I also like that he's allowed to keep money form "other illicit activities." Now that sends a strong message about following the law. Plus, can't he just shift assets around? Seriously, this whole idea is rediculous. This is our plan? We'll go after him with accountants? Did whoever thought this up just watch the Untouchables? Is this what we're reduced to? Telling Kim he can keep making money by breaking the law but he can't use that money to break the law and develop nukes. Not only that, but we're not even "calling" on him to stop transferring or developing banned weaponry. I'm sorry, but you may as well just get rid of the pretence and welcome him into the nuclear family. This isn't a plan, it's a sham.

But it gets better. In the second part, we admit that we're certainally not calling on him to stop, and we let him know that we're also not going to inspect his cargo that close after-all. Wow, this will surely put an end to his nuclear desires. This administration loves to throw the word "appeasement" around, and this isn't?

The net result is that he's allowed to make money from illegal activity, develop banned weapons (but not use the illegal money to do that) and move things around without stringent oversight of cargo. But people who support NK's weapon's programs can't travel. Well, put a bow on this problem.

So let's look at where things are today. One, we're officially not safer than before 9/11. Anytime any politician makes that claim, you can remind them of a nuclear NK, which will soon have the ability to target the US, and also has a long history of selling weapons to people who don't like us. Bush's legacy will be his obsession with Iraq and a nuclear NK. Personally, I would prefer Hussein in power to a nuclear NK. The world just got a lot more dangerous. Here's why. Most of the nations in that area are techncially savvy enough to join the club in short fasion. A nuclear arms race in SE Asia is not a good development for world security.

However, the good news is that NK's actions will probably surround China, the most likey military challenger to US supreamacy, with nulcear powers. A nuclear Japan will act as a check on China's power and influence in the area. A nulcear S. Korea will act as a check against both China and NK.

Which is why I like giving Taiwan nukes. China will blow a gasket over this. The surest way to graduate from "runaway province under constant threat of re-aquisition" is to have a few nukes. Then you get "independent nation" status.

Which is why I don't understand China's play on this. Russia yes. They're acting by the book, anything other than what they're doing would be a weird. But China? They have to be aware of having their budding regional power dulled by a nuclear Japan (with the accompanying military build-up) and nuclear Seoul. They got their biggest benefit by having NK periodically spout off about nukes, but once it happened, their hand actually got weaker. Plus, they have to know that their ability to control Kim goes out the window when he has nukes. Not only does he not need China's protection, but what will happen next time they go to control him, or hold something back and he reminds them that he as nuclear missles pointed at Beijeing? Kims nukes can kill chinese just as easy as S. Koreans, Japanese or Americans. My bet is that China takes him out.

But until then, I think one way of getting China to step up is to embarrass them. US diplomats, such as they are, should be making comments like, "Kim clearly doesn't respect/fear/listen, etc to China." Or, "Kim's actions show how little influence China has over him, and demonstrates how far they have to go in diplomatic situations." Or, "NK's test was a humilitating act against China." Put the pressure on them.

Barring that, it makes more sense to hit NK now, before they have big bombs and big delivery systems.

Ahhhh, the power of moral relativism

Thankfully Christopher Shays (R) CT has put the Foley mess into perspective for us.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday. "Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody."

Well, there you go. No need to be worried about this anymore.

When you start relying on "We're not as bad as the collective mistakes of the Democrats, and we don't think we're as bad as the worst of world leadership" then its safe to say, that as a party, you're running out of steam. The good news for the GOP is that the Dems are already out of steam and are now running on, "The Democratic Party - We don't harbor pedophiles."

In summary, both parties are running on the inspiring platform of, "Vote for us, we're not as bad as the other party." Good times.

In Summary

Ken Gordon, Democratic nominee for Secretary of State for Colorado sums up the bizzare and frustrating nature of politics.

This process is so odd though. You work hard for years putting yourself in a position to run for an office. You raise money, travel the state, debate your opponent, walk door-to-door and then, depending on the sex life of some Congressman from Florida, you win or lose an election.

Thing is, he's right.

Just a reminder

With N. Korea going all nuclear Clinton's taking some heat for his actions, and rightly so. However, I came across this article from 2002 saying that the US will release $95 million to N. Korea to replace Dear Leader's nuke program (I translated from the English "programme" for all us American readers).

Key quote:

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors. President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".

Ummm, oops.

But at least the new reactors were a fair exchange right? Not so said Mr. Sokolski

"These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring,"

Well, Mr. Chicken Littleski, how do you feel now?

You read it here first!

Apparantly James Baker and the rest of the The Iraq Study Group (which, by the by, was set up by Congress with the Pres' approval, which means that the Hydrablog, since Baker and co clearly took from us, also has the Pre's approval - whoo-hoo!). OK, where was I, I lost track of where I was, I got some bubbly in my eye from the big celebration...oh, Baker and the Iraqettes may be reccomending that Iraq be split into "three highly autonomous regions."

Says a "source" and no it wasn't me,

“The Kurds already effectively have their own area,” said a source close to the group. “The federalisation of Iraq is going to take place one way or another.

Hmmm, where have I heard this line of reasoning before? That's right baby, at the ol' H-Blog. You'd think we'd get some props for the assist. But it's ok, we're just happy being part of the solution.

Again, when someone say's it better

From Chuck Todd of NationalJournal.com.

if the Republicans somehow keep control of Congress in the wake of all this, then the Democrats probably will file for Chapter 11 or be sued for political malpractice.

I think that sums up the situation better than anything I've said.

Signing Statement quick hit

On the issue of signing statements, I agree with both my High School Civics teacher and the American Bar Association .

a president has only two choices -- to sign a bill and enforce it as written, or to veto it and give Congress a chance to override the veto.

If the President doesn't like it, take it to court. The way I remember things, Congress makes the laws, the President enforces them, and the Courts determine their Constitutionality. Separation of power, pretty simple really.

And as if on cue...

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy...

I was reading this article where Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi discusses her plans if the Dems take over the house in Novemeber and things were going well. While I don't agree with all of her ideas for her "first 100 hours" plan, it is the first time I've heard a real agenda from the Dems. It's solid Dem populist stuff , reads well on paper, it certainly addresses concerns from their base, but most importantly, it's a list. So I'm thinking, "ok, now I have something to guage the Dems on. I can see how I like them on their own." Then things start wobbling for me.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

And.

Asked what offices should would occupy if in the Capitol if she becomes speaker, she laughed. "I'll have any suite I want."

Then it struck me. Pelosi doesn't know when to shut-up.

Look at the first block. The first sentence is fine. Good key words like "market place" and it also digs at the Bush tax cuts which did mostly help the highest tax bracket. And focusing on the middle class with the "work not weatlh" line is Dem bread and butter. Plus it's catchy. Lot's of real debate about how the middle class is doing and where it's best to target tax cuts. While you may disagree, it's solid ground.

Then "she added" the line about sharing the wealth. This goes right back to the "Dems as socialists" attack. And with lines like that, the attackers are probably right (heh- right and from the right - got to be fast here on the Hydrablog). If she stopped before the her add, then she would have come out fine. But if I'm looking to hurt the Dems, the wealth redistribution line becomes the tag I talk about. Anyone who grew up playing Punch Out knows that you have to "stick and move." Don't linger with "adds," make your main point and move on.

Then she, as leader of the Democratic party (yes that very party that's been getting it handed to them for 10 years) starts getting all heady. "I'll have any suite I want." Seriously? Maybe win control first, then start redecorating. Why not just answer the question, "Well there's a long time to the election, we're focused on winning. I'm much more concerned with winning seats than which seat I'll sit in if we're successful." Her pary has proven to be woefully unable to compete with the GOP, just a week ago they got massively outmanoevered by the GOP on the Torture bill, "Hey McCain you handle this, we'll just be over here doing nothing. Thank you." My advice, Mrs. Pelosi, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

They just make it so hard to root for. They're like the Washington Generals, they can only win if the GOP completely falls apart, and even then it's a squeaker. It will be interesting to see how long they can hold on to control if they happen to bungle their way into it.

Yuck

Looks like the Foley ads are starting to run. I don't think they're a good idea. But as to why this particular ad is neccessary, from the write up.

Former Rep. Baron Hill, D-Indiana, criticizes Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-Indiana, for refusing to return $77,000 in campaign contributions "from the House leadership who knew about but did nothing to stop sexual predator Congressman Foley.

I can see going after Dennis Hastert or Tom Reynolds, but this guy? From the looks of it he's just some random congressman who happens to be Republican. The ad's not saying he was involved in a cover-up, or that he even knew of anything. Sodrel's "link" to Foley, according to folks from the Hill camp is,

"Basically, our point is there is a crisis in leadership and Mike Sodrel isn't doing anything about it," she said. "He is part of the problem."

Ham fisted at best, but mostly yucky. The dems need to be real careful here. If I was anywhere close to fence in this race I would move into the Sodrel camp. The thing is, Hill was up in a poll on September 17, as "53 percent of voters said they would vote for Democrat Baron Hill; 42 percent said they would vote for Rep. Mike Sodrel, R-9th." An stupid move on Hill's part. He's up, the Foley thing is national news so it has to be hurting Sodrel, so there's no need to get involved. Just let things work. This ad can only backfire, and I hope it does.

Moron.

Foley of it

I can't go too far into the guilt of the Foley matter as I won't read the IM's in question (I won't even link to them. If you want to read them, you can find them). All I've seen are the heavily edited excerpts that you can't avoid on TV and newspapers/websites (from that alone though, if he sent them to my son, or daughter, he would hurt real bad).

Instead I want to talk around it, but first I have to wonder why this simple solution didn't occur to anyone.

Since House Leadership knew about Foley for at least 2 years then was an easy solution that would have avoided a) An appearance of Homophobia (by the by, I think this is complete crap - the worst kind of excuse one could imagine. I'm sorry, but anyone who's buying this line of reasoning is an idiot, seriously, an idiot. I won't drone on here because I can't imagine anyone's taking the bait, but if you want to discuss it tell me in the comments section and I'll be happy to go into it). b) Kept the seat. Which seems like the real goal. c) Got ahead of the inevitable release of the the seedy information. d)Wrapped the whole mess up. All anyone had to do was simply go to Foley two years ago and tell him, "Look, this is bad. Maybe not jail bad, but bad none the less. We're not going public with it because we don't know all the details. BUT, you're not running again for Congress. This is your last term. Thank you."

He would have thanked Hastert, and that would have been that. It's a heavily GOP Gerrymandered district, so the seat was safe with a new candidate. Plus, this news most probably would not have broke, and if it did, so what? This election is about the new guy. If the news did get out, leadership could have said, "We had information, not as explicate as this, but troubling enough that we dealt with it." They may have taken some heat, but nothing like the burn they're getting now. "Ease outs" are historically the way these things are handled by insiders. Right or wrong, innocent or guilty, it avoids the mess, everyone saves face, and all parties have the chance to prosper - Foley could have raked it in as a former, and popular, congressman as a lobbiest, boardmember, etc. Why Hastert didn't do this is anyone's guess. What's even worse is that NRCC Chairman Rep. Tom Reynolds conviced him to run again when Foley was thinking about calling it a career. It's simply mindblowing. GOP leadership urged a possible pedophile to run for re-election. Wow, what a wrong turn. If that doesn't get you fired, nothing will.

I just can't get past that, but because I'm a pro (if one can be a pro-blogger) so here we go.

One, it show's messed up our politicians are. To me, this is pretty cut and dry. He's a sicko. Not only were his antics covered up, he was allowed to continue as Co Chair, Missing and Exploited Childrens Caucus (quick aside, here's his bio at Project Vote smart. Not for nothing, maybe the problem with Congress is too many Caucuses. If I read these on the Onion, I would swear they were fake.). Leadership knew and did nothing, putting more underage pages at risk. The clear answer is a mass cleansing of all involved. It doesn't matter if you're a Dem or a GOPer (or of course, a Libertarian), that's the solution. Yet, the GOP is trying desperately to make this a political issue by blaming the Dems, bringing up past Dem issues, and trying to create the impression that this was all orchestrated by the Dems. My favorites are Newt Gingrich, who I was starting to warm to, saying that Dem sex scandals are worse. Ummm, so what does that have to do with Foley and the cover-up? Can you imagine if Wal-Mart had a similar thing happen to it and said, "Oh yeah, well things are worse at Target!" Would that fly with anyone? Would anyone feel better about shopping at Wal-Mart knowing that? Look, I don't want to get too far off message here but maybe the GOP's problem is that it's completely lost its moral footing. It's all relative now. "Our version of torture is ok because Saddam's was worse." "Our sex scandals are ok because the Dem's are worse." There's no set standard upon which they hold themselves. As long as they perceive their transgressions to be less than the bottom example, it's ok. How do you support that? Plus, unless I missed something, chronic gay pedophelia sets a new low. I honestly don't recall worse than that from the Dems (Stalin you can correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Second, this notion that ABC released it to hurt the GOP. Apparantly Fox had the info as did at least the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald (here's the St. Pete Times response) and they knew for about a year. I don't have it in me to go do the research, but I've read the Times for years, and I occasionaly watch Fox, generally they have no problem reporting this kind of stuff. But memory is selective so I'm not calling them hypocritical. My piont with this section is that between them getting it, and the admitted Foley concerns by those around and above him, it was going to come out. The problem with avoiding a problem rather than confronting it is that you lose all ability to control timing. Had this come out a year ago, when it was essentially "out," and dealt with, then it would not be happening now. No one sat on this, except possibly Fox, the Times and the Herald, and released it to hurt the GOP right before the elections. The fact that the story was out a year ago kills that theory.

Third, as far as "media bias" goes, both Fox (on O'Reilly - seriously Stalin can we both at least agree that he's a hack, please. Just meet me halfway on this one point) and the AP labled Foley as "D-FL" not once, but several times. A mistake? Maybe. But it has to hurt the "liberal biased media" theory, or open Fox and AP up to "conservative manipulation" conspiracy theories.

And to come full circle, Snow's a real jackass. Calling Foley's IM's "naughty e-mails" is a pathetic, partisan attempt to cover the GOP. My bet is that if they were sent to Snow's underage child, he'd view them as slightly more than "naughty." Granted, he later back-tracked, but only after getting hammered by anyone and everyone who heard his initial comments.

That's about all I can take for now. The lesson, as always, is don't cover, don't hide, just deal. If the GOP just did that, they wouldn't be in this storm right now.

Hand me the whip, this horse isn't dead enough

More musings on Frist's ban of internet gambling, well not all gambling, lotteries and horses are a-ok, it's poker that Frist is after. Ironic that of the three, poker is the only one that requires real skill, but that's not the point of this post. Also, Radley Balko does a nice job of explaining how this ban, like most government attempts to save us from ourselves, may cause more damage.

What I'm curious about is the effect on poker boom. Over the last decade or so, poker has gone from a true niche game to a national phenomena. I remember when the one poker magazine in existance was about to close shop, now there are no less than three national glossy magazines that you can buy in the airport. I also remember special ordering Doyle Brunsen's Super/System by phone from a specialty book store in Vegas, now it's at every bookstore in America. For my last trip down memory lane, I remember staying up late to watch a Brittish Poker show that aired on Fox, Friday Night Poker it think (this was also before Tivo), now there are at least six national shows about poker. I also remember when comic books cost less than 50 cents, my hip hurts and those damn kids won't get off my lawn!

Most of this explosion is fueled by on-line poker sites. Super Satellites, a game where a $1 entry can get you a seat at the $10,000 main event entry fee for the World Series of Poker ballooned the event to consecutive record turn-outs, the "first day" was really multiple waves played out over several weeks. Plus the poker boom came about at a time when Vegas bookings, earnings and seats were all down. That changed when people wanted to take their on-line skills to the big show. Killing internet gaming kills the golden goose for an entire industry. A legal industry, that generates conciderable profits for it's investors and loads of tax revenue.

But is it dead? By targeting banks that issue credit cards, debit cards or wire transfers that pay for the gambling it does appear to choke the life out of the industry. However, if the will is high enough (and looking at the monster growth of poker players nation wide - and the incredible revenue they generate, $6 bln in the US for on-line poker alone, it looks like it is) then someone will find a way. I'm no expert on international banking, but I assume one could set up a credit card or bank account in a foreign jusidiction and avoid the whole mess. My guess is also that the internet will make this process easy. So, while it may temporarily dissuade a casual internet gamer from playing poker, the internet, and comfort with the internet, will create a way around it. My bet (heh) is that a work-around will crop up, internet poker will stay around, US companies will lose revenue, taxpayers lose revenue and possibly shady, and definitely foreign, organizations/nations will increase their income.

Genius Frist, absolute genius.

Don't fence me in

One of the last things Congress did before adjourning was to pass legislation authorizing the start of the fence between the US and Mexico and a $1.2 bln down payment on a 700 mile stretch. Here's the kicker, according to the article no one knows just how much the fence will cost. My rough calculation based on the San Diego fence is $6.325 bln for the 700 miles.

So let's have some fun.

Cost: Whatever cost is budgeted and/or publicized will be nowhere close to the actual cost. Personally, I think the over/under is initially three times. Anyone who's ever done their own building/remodeling, or followed government spending would probably agree. Long term costs will easily blow through the 3x figure owing to upgrades, maintenance, staffing, etc.

Effectiveness: We also know it won't work. Won't keep illegals out to any real degree and more importantly, it won't keep terrorists out. Look at the Berlin Wall, the only real example for our Mexican Wall. There's an entire museum show-casing the innovative ways people trafficked others past the guards. And this was a major wall with mines, guns, camera's and no pretense of privacy of citizen rights. Is the smart assumption that our "fence" will work better, or worse than the Berlin wall? The reality is that all it will lead to is ever increasing fortifications, at ever increasing costs, followed by the inevitable break down of civil rights for people moving legally across the border.

Additional expense: Like it or not, our economy relies on "undocumented" immigrants. Take them out of the labor pool and costs for a large basket of goods and services go up. So not only do American's pay for the wall, but they pay daily with higher priced goods and services. Which leads to...inflation. All this talk about increased technological efficiency keeping wages down ignores the fact cheap illegal labor also keeps wages down. Combine the two, and you get a super whammy bang on keeping prices down. But take out cheap labor, prices go up, the Fed increases rates to ward off inflation, and the economy tanks. Hurray! Sorry, but illegal immigrants are like oil. The simple fact is that our economy is dependent on both, like it or not. Getting rid of illegals is like banning oil. It may make some people feel good, but economically, it's a really stupid move.

Yet another reason why I love this country

Sgt. Patrick Stewart gave his life fighting in Afghanistan, was awarded the Air Medal, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Nevada Distinguished Service Medal, the Combat Action Badge, and was set to be buried in Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley. The only hang up was what symbol to put on his tombstone. You see, Sgt Stewart was a Wiccan. His wife wanted to put the Wiccan symbol, an upward facing pentagram, on his marker just as Christian's put a cross, Jews the Start of David, and Athiests and their cool symbol, which looks like something that would go on a superhero's chest (click here for a complete list with pictures). However, Wiccan isn't on the approved list, so no symbol for Sgt. Stewart (note that the article appears at Armytimes.com - love it. Cynic number one would say that the Army would try to squash such an article in one of their outlets). End of story? Hardly.

Mrs. Stewart appealed to the DVA, had strong community support, and Sgt. Stewart's brother's in arms in Afghanistan circulated a petition in support of her efforts. Here, cynic number two would say that the Christian's would clearly oppose the addition of a pagan symbol, especially the pentagram. Not so fast. ChristianityToday.com had this article by John W. Whitehead. A compassionate, well reasoned article in favor of allowing the pentagram.

So while Wiccan's have been seeking official recognition for more than a decade, Mrs. Stewart tried anyway. Cynic number three would say the DVA's bureaucracy is where petition's like this go to die. Well... maybe. On September 13, MSNBC.msn.com reported that Mrs. Stewart won state approval to put the pentagram on Sgt. Stewart's marker. The Nevada Attorney General found that the Feds have no authority over state burial grounds. The DVA is still deciding their official policy. So for now cynic number three is half-right. But after all this, I believe he will be all wrong.

A little something to help Stalin feel better

Time.com has a solid article on why the GOP is feeling better than polls suggest they should about the mid-term elections. I tend to agree, plus it just shows how much better the GOP machine is than the Dem machine (which is really more like a Tonka toy).

However, this Foley thing could be huge. With congress out of session there's nothing to refocus the nation on. The last thing that people will remember about this Congress is how sick Foley is, and wonder if the GOP leadership did or did not cover it up.