Free Trade Agreement?

Since times are rather slow with Congress in recess, I figured I would hit another one of my favorite targets, pundits (And don't get cute, I'm not a pundit, I'm a critic, or enlightened guide if you will). As a quick caveat, I get that when you have to put on a show every day, or show and radio, or show and radio and book like Stalin fav Bill O'Reilly (another quick aside - try to keep up. His book title and cover is the all time best on the unintentional comedy scale. I love it. How does anyone have the guts to go to the counter and buy "Culture Warrior?" I'd rather be caught buying the latest copy of Juggs, than show up at the counter with that ridiculous picture and title in hand) your going to have to stretch now and again, make up an enemy, take a side on a silly point, create a controversy, etc, especially now with all the news and radio options, so most of what these guys do is acting and I mostly play along. But like I said, slow day.

So Lou Dobbs draws the unlucky short straw. He's been on an anti-free trade rant for a while now, but this column at CNN is just too much. Stalin, here's your bias alert - I'm a big fan of free trade agreements, particularly the multi-lateral kind, I hope no liberals throw a Startbucks Coffee mug through my window.

So let's start with the title, "New Congress must show courage." Yes, yes, I hope the new Democratically controlled Congress will have the courage to listen the anti-free trade Unions. What a magnificent display of backbone that would be.

But on to the meat as they say (And by "they" I mean Muscles for Justice). Mr. Dobbs' article is basically one long piece on the US economy and how cheap imports are killing it. I think he has it exactly wrong, cheap imports are helping hold our economy up. Not only that, but the fix to our economy isn't in fewer trade agreements, it's a whole lot more complicated than that.

Highlights, from the top.

The Dollar.

The dollar is falling and China and Europe are growing concerned at holding onto the dollar (he also misses that more nations are holding and doing business in Euro's). He's right the dollar is falling. He's wrong to blame the trade deficit. The dollar is falling because the US is running a massive budget deficit and asking them to finance it. With no indication that the spending will stop they are understandably getting both tired and concerned. The budget deficit is also pushing down the dollar on its own. Investors are wondering where all the money will come from to finance not only the immediate debt, but all the funding mandates that are in our future. Also, oil has always affected the dollar. And I'm trying to think, is there something else I'm missing that could be putting pressure on the dollar? Oh yes the war. Not only the actual war, which always depresses a currency, but the cost of the war (see above), and the damage its done in creating potential new enemies. Markets like stability and right now, the US is about the most unstable industrialized nation going. The dollar should be weak. [The following is not a political statement about the war.] If you want to increase the strength of the dollar, decrease the budget deficit, get out of Iraq, make nice with Iran, N. Korea, and quit using terrorism to scare up votes. Create stability, the international market looks at these things, and when some idiot potential President says that we'll lose a city in the next decade, it spooks the market. The mirror also helps. Household debt stands at a record 134% of disposable income. Currency traders definitely price that little nugget into their formulas (more on this later). Finally, Dobb's is right, the trade deficit is something that's priced in, but it's minor on an economy our size, and is probably affecting the dollar at the basis point level. To say that fixing the trade deficit will strengthen the dollar is like saying "I'll stop that tidal wave this this pebble."

The Trade Deficit.

What is the impact of the trade deficit? Dobbs sites the 3 million lost jobs and that new jobs created pay less. Because I want to keep this at both the macro and philosophical levels, which keeps me from having to endlessly cite from boring economic journals, I'm not going to quibble over his numbers. Suffice to say, we both agree that jobs have been lost, and jobs have been created. I'm going to focus on the benefits of the trade deficit as it relates to jobs and US economic strength. Dobbs says the new jobs pay less, couple this with the data on real wage stagnation and he has a point. The counter is that cheap imports mean that people enjoy a higher standard of living than they did 20 years ago, regardless of wages. The internal buying power of the dollar has kept wage pressures down, taking out one of the big causes of inflation, helping the economy grow and yes, making US goods more competitive abroad. Taking away cheap goods kills all of this, and doesn't help it. If you took away cheap foreign goods, wage pressures would increase (keep in mind the long period of low unemployment, theoretically this should lead to higher wages, but the fact that you can buy a cheap big screen TV or computer has taken away the stimulus to fight for higher wages - and lead to more debt - again, more on this later), driving up expenses, driving up prices, hurting the value of our exports on the global market, and finally, negatively affecting our trade deficit. Taking away free trade will not help American industry. As a general rule, higher prices mean less sales. People won't buy expensive goods, they'll do without until they can command a higher salary, which they won't be able to do because no one's buying anything and the economy is tanking. The good news is that higher wages and higher cost of goods do lead to inflation, another economy killer. For all of Mr. Dobbs rhetoric, trade barriers will not rebuild Big Auto. American's already don't buy cheap poorly designed cars, does he really think they'll buy expensive poorly designed cars? (As a side note, economists often credit "increased productivity" for this longish period of low inflation. I think a large chunk of the credit goes to cheap imports, mostly for the reasons stated above.)

Furthermore, the trade deficit is expected. Does America manufacture anything the average Indonesian or Chinese citizen wants or can afford? The deficit with Europe is much narrower, or even a surplus depending. However, as Indonesia and China move up the economic ladder, they will be more willing and able to buy our goods. We want that.

The simple fact is that cheap imports work to our advantage. Even if they did not, our economy is far too reliant on them to take them away.

Household Debt.

Now we're talking, and thanks for waiting. Unfortunately, Mr. Dobbs never even hits on it, but the main driver for the trade deficit is not any negotiation at the Federal level, rather it lies in the American Consumer. From Mr. Dobbs' perspective, he has seen the enemy and it is us. At 134% leverage, the US consumer is buying a ton of stuff they cannot afford, and my guess is that its mostly imports (big screen TV, video games, lots and lots of clothes/shoes, cheap jewelry, toys, a new car every couple of years, etc). Now I'm not saying clothes, for example, aren't a necessity, but rather talking to the amount. Excess spending is what drives the trade deficit. Back to the deficit expectation. No one spends like Americans. To expect a surplus with Japan with their extremely high household savings rate is sheer folly. You have to know going in that they won't spend like we do, even if they want/need our products. Take the leverage out of the US consumer, and get spending to a more sustainable level and my bet is that the trade deficit decreases. However, does a decrease in debt lead to a decrease in quality of life, leading to an increase in wage pressures? Probably. Economics is a big tangled web folks. If Mr. Dobbs were serious about the trade deficit he would be telling people to buy less, much less, a lot less. But that doesn't play well with his populist oratory, nor would it sit will with CNN's advertisers. So it's all the fault of the wealthy and/or powerful. I guess he could also try for some kind of mandate on how much each American can spend. Bottom line, the people control one side of the trade deficit (in this case the larger side). Want to fix it, start there.

At the end of it all, not only is Mr. Dobbs solution is far to simple to address his concerns, its wrong, and potentially harmful to the very people he's trying to protect.

Supreme Court Quick Hit

For some reason the Supreme Court taking up the a Global Warming case is getting big play in the media, generally with a heading along the lines of "White House may have to take steps to curb emissions" as a lead in.

Without knowing a thing about the relevant laws, precedences or arguments, this will go down as 5-4 against regulation. If only internet gambling were allowed...

The H-Blog isn't always about breaking news, it's also about giving you more time in your day by letting you know what to ignore. This case is one of them.

Introducing Hydrablog's latest prize for readers

We at Hydrablog are proud to announce the "Reader Watchdog" Award. This award goes to a reader who finds an error or puts the H-Blog onto new knowledge. The Inaugural Award goes to "Mike." He posted in the comment section of the "No knock tragedy" post that Radley Balco of "The Agitator" and "Reason Hit & Run" fame already found fact to what I said was probably in the future regarding criminals using SWAT techniques to rob people. I checked Balco's site and under the "Paramilitary Police Raids" category he does cite several instances of criminals using SWAT techniques to rob people. So, I hereby give Balco the front of the line. You may have won this battle, but I will win the war. Case in point, Balco never mentions the Hollywood angle, that's all mine baby. Shoulda cast the net a little wider Mr. Balco, now its 1-1 and I've got the mo'.

Where was I? Oh yes, congratulations to "Mike." Excellent job, and that's just the kind of effort and smarts that we've come to expect and appreciate from H-Blog readers. As a show of appreciation, we hope you will enjoy your complimentary one year subscription to the Hydrablog!

Kansas Outlaws Practice of Evolution

"Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet"

So say's the always eloquent and classy Honorable Alcee Hastings (D-FL) after being passed over by SOH Pelosi for the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Thus ending the final bit of the bizarre start of Pelosi's career as SOH.

No word on whether Pelosi minor rival Harman will get the gig.

Cowboys coach slams Bush's Iraq policy

Dallas Cowboys head coach Bill "Tuna" Parcells slammed President Bush's Iraq war strategy yesterday while discussing the release of the NFL's all-time most accurate, and one of the highest paid, kicker and signing Martin "Automatica" Gramatica.

"Obviously, I feel better than having stayed the course the other way,"

BAM! Right there, a direct blast, an obvious repudiation of the President's "Stay the Course" strategy. Just a vicious broadside against an already battered President. Bill Parcell's, liberal. You heard it here first.

America's team v. America's President only on the Hydrablog!

Peace kicked ass!

The Peace Wreath will stay on the homes of a Pagosa Springs, CO couple's house after all. As blogged (reported?) on the H-Blog, there was a bit of a to-do over the hanging of Christmas Peace Wreath (or anti-war devil symbol depending on your point of view). Turns out it wasn't the wreath that left, it was the board. Predictably, local, city, state, national, and even world opinion was for keeping the message of peace. Bonus coverage from the NYT.

Sorry Mr. Bush

Senior that is. After the first Gulf War, and through the decade that followed, I was a loud critic of George H. W. Bush's decision to not finish the job and take out Saddam. I now offer up the idea that maybe, just maybe, he had a better grip of the situation than I did. I know its hard for many readers to accept, but at 21-33 it's possible that I didn't have the same grasp of the region, politics, religion, ect as a former Congressman, former head of the CIA, 8 year VP, and current Pres.

With the talk of "officially" calling Iraq a Civil War, I came across this

"We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of "civil war" is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."

But besides that, we've got this thing totally under control.

So maybe Sr. saw this on the horizon, maybe he was right, and maybe I was wrong. My Bad Mr. President.

I got something to say to all you free speech suckers...

Newt Gingrich, while keynoting a First Amendment Award ceremony, spoke out against campaign finance reform (yaaaaaay) noted that court rulings on Separation of Church and State are hurting peoples right to express themselves (yaaaaaay), and said, "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message" (yaaa-what?). Seriously, saying we may need to curb free speech at a First Amendment Award ceremony? Was he drunk? Beyond the fact that I think he's wrong, what was he thinking? Maybe he was going for his own private "I'll show you jerks free speech, free speech sucks. Ha! I said it, what're you gonna do free speech weenies, tell me to be quiet?" moment.

I also like, "We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade." It's that kind of unrestrained optimism that makes me want vote for him for President right now.

No knock tragedy

I came across this article about a "no knock" raid that resulted in the death of an 88 year old woman, Kathryn Johnston (I figured Radley Balco would be on this, and he is, here for starters).

As a lead in, my general point with this post is that unrestrained power leads to slop, and when guns are involved slop is very, very bad.

I also want to be clear that my issues with no-knock raids are not a dig on the police. Rather it's the opposite. I believe cops do a great job, and are more than capable of policing (keeping us safe, solving crimes, stopping crimes, etc) through contact, conversation, investigating, and building cases, just as they've done forever. The rise of the paramilitary option, with the "let's just go get 'em" mentality is hurting both the cops, and the bond between cops and civilians that all need for cops to be most effective.

Said another way, power and zeal lead to "just do it" as opposed to "do it right." (sorry Nike)

Two articles give color and flavor.

From CNN

Authorities said Johnston opened fire on police who tried to enter her home, prying off burglar bars and forcing open her door, during a "no-knock" drug raid. Officers returned fire, killing her.

Mrs. Johnson was described as being so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she "wouldn't let neighbors who delivered groceries for her come into her home."

That being the case, even a cursory investigation by the police would indicate that one, they have the wrong house. Two, if they think there's a crime, they don't need SWAT to control the 88 year old lady that lives there.

" 'This is what you need to do. You need to cover our [rear]. ... It's all on you man. ... You need to tell them about this Sam dude.' "

Police say there was a man named Sam who is 6' tall and 250lbs who sells crack from the house, and that the house has a surveillance system. Again, even a quick check on the house would show both of those allegations false. But where did such info come from in the first place? This is where it gets interesting. Police say an informant gave it to them, the informant says he never said anything and that the police told him to back their story up. Neither is really good, but the latter is terrible. Here's what I don't get. People go nuts when the press prints a story based on one informant, why do the police get the right for a no-knock warrant, break through your doors and windows with guns drawn based on the testimony of one guy?

Part of me wonders what would happen if the Atlanta police department spent the money that went to SWAT, and all their cool toys, and used it to put more cops on the sidewalks of the neighborhood? Would coming out from behind the ski mask help cops know the people? Would a beat cop have said, "no one named Sam lives there, that's Mrs. Johnson's house."

Look I want to be clear, this isn't an anti-cop post. I love cops, my uncle was a cop, I wanted to be a cop when I was young. It's a dangerous and often thankless job. This is about the increased militarization of the police force and the dangers of ignoring the 4th Amendment. With these transformations come the loss of trust from the citizens, and not only does a loss of trust make police work harder, it leads to more and more mistakes like this, which lead to more loss of trust, which leads to more ski-masks.

The reliance on no-knock raids and the watered down search warrant provisions don't lead to less crime or greater protections. They're short-cuts, and like all short-cuts they look better in the short term, but fail in the long term. Taking the time to do things right is always the better way.

Finally, I wonder which does more harm to the neighborhood. Having "Sam" sell crack out of a house [added-for a month while police do investigative work], or having the police barge in and kill an 88 year old lady? I can't shake the feeling that the citizens of that neighborhood have been given one more reason to distrust the police. I also can't shake the feeling that if there was no such thing as a no-knock warrant, and the police did actual police work, not only would Mrs. Johnson still be alive, but the real "Sam" would have been caught.

PS. It's only a matter of time before someone figures out that no-knock intrusions are a great way to break into a house. Since by law the police do not have to identify themselves, or show proof of warrant, there is no protection against criminals using this method. It will happen in reality, or someone will make it part of a TV show or movie. I'm writing this last part to be a chicken little, I just want H-blog readers to be ahead of the curve, real or Hollywood. It's my gift to you.

Kerry, the great uniter (Nice tan edition)

In these stressful and dividing times, it looks like there is one thing that American's, including myself agree, nobody likes Kerry (Frist is right there too).

Give Peace a chance

A Colorado Homeowners Association is levying a fine against a woman who had the audacity to hang a wreath in the shape of peace symbol on her house. Ahhh, let the Christmas Season begin.

I have to say, looking at the picture, I don't see any kind of hard core, anti-troop message in it, and it's not even particularly political. I suppose "peace" is anti-war, but isn't the goal of every war...peace? I mean, no one wants war forever. But since I don't live there, it's not really worth anyone's time for me to go into any real discussion on the merits of the fine. I don't live in a little deed restricted sub-country so I can hang whatever I want from my door.

I do want to highlight the passage that says "some" residents have kids in Iraq, and "some" residents think the peace symbol is satanic (somebody read the Da Vinci code), for a grand total of "three or four" complaints out of a population of 200 homes. Wow, what a groundswell of outrage! Why, I bet it's hard to walk the street of the subdivision with all that protest. I'm sorry but this falls into the "some guy said it was satanic" category.

But at the end of the day, it's hard for me to get too worked up about Mrs. Jensen's plight. I assume she read the terms of the homeowners agreement before she bought, and I assume she knows the rules as she is a former president of the association. I get that this is beyond petty (and frankly stuuuupid), but rules is rules. If people want to live in little deed restricted neighborhoods, that's their beeswax, but this is the result. If people want to sign over control to their houses to random petty dictators who fire committees that don't rule their way, that's all them. I don't get it, never have, and don't think I ever will. I assume Mrs. Jensen will make a stink, and Mr. Kearns will have to defend his actions but I don't know how this will turn out. Hyperbole alert...when you surrender your rights, you open yourself up to the whims of idiots, and idiots are everywhere. Is that worth the potential for an extra boost in home value? Clearly Mrs. Jensen thinks so, or at least thought so.

Finally, when people talk about the "War on Christmas," I wonder how this fits in? If the Christmas refrain, "peace on earth, goodwill towards men" is offensive, isn't that a harder blow to Christmas than "Happy Holidays?"

Tonight on FOX: "Putin" or "Put On"?

(top) Russian former spy Alexander Litvinenko; (bottom) QB Killa Warren Sapp

***

Host Monty Burns sits down with Sapp to talk about his new book, If I Ate It.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Won't be blogging much, if at all, for the rest of the week. Maybe next year you will all be more thankful for my blogging, and I'll stick around for the holiday.

Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing: block it out.

S. Dakota's Aborts Abortion Law. Why?

I know I'm waaaay late with commentary on this, but this post's been percolating and I now have the time and inclination to write it.

For those of you who don't know, South Dakota's State Assembly passed the most restrictive abortion ban in America, and the Gov signed it. Presumably, it was meant as a test case to get Roe v. Wade back on the Supreme Court docket. For those of you expecting an in depth discussion about abortion, this post will disappoint. I'm looking at this from a political view, particularly the relation between elected official and constituent.

So here we go.

The SD House passed the bill 47-22.

The SD Senate passed the bill 23-12.

The SD voters rejected the bill 56%-44%.

I'm fascinated by those numbers. Look at them again. SD elected officials felt that there was enough of a demand for this particular law that both chambers passed it by about 2-1, yet the voters quashed it 12 points.

Why? Is it because the SD legislators are that out of touch with their voters? Said another way, how could they think there was this overwhelming mandate for something that lost by a fairly significant margin? If the Legislature is a form of sampling, then this result is way outside the margin of error for this issue. Or is it that this bill was pushed by a vocal minority, and SD's elected officials lacked the courage or will to represent their constituents in the face of a well planned strategy by the Pro-life crowd. Or did the SD Legislature take the Specter Method and vote for something they knew wouldn't fly in the hopes that the voters would reject it in the election (here the electorate backstops the cowardice not the Courts in the Official Arlen Specter Method of Leadership). Or does the fault rest with the voters? Do they elect officials based on factors that do not represent their true will or desires? This would be the "you get what you deserve in a Democracy" view.

Again, this post is not about Abortion rights, its about the very obvious disconnect that occurred in South Dakota. This is especially perplexing given all the ways that elected officials can communicate with, or receive information from the electorate. Taking that a step further, SD has a population of about 755,000, for a representative to voter ratio of about 11,000 to 1. What happens at the national level where the ratio is about 690,000 to 1? (Obviously, the disparity is even greater in the Senates)

Like I said, I'm still percolatin' on this, but I do think it shows the danger of any elected body saying/assuming it has some sort of mandate when it acts. Elections often come down to two or three issues, some not even relevant to legislating, yet those legislators vote on hundreds of bills. The "mandate" that got you elected (you weren't Mark Foley), may not be the "mandate" that says you should pass a bill (you need reinstate the draft). Both voters and officials need to understand this.

I'd by THAT for a dollar

One of the many windmills at which I tilt is getting rid of the dollar bill and replacing it with a coin.

Here's an update.

Dem's plan for Iraq immerging

Looks like the fog is lifting from the Dem's pre-election "plan" for Iraq, and a real strategy is starting to form.

Clearly, like any good strategy for dealing with a controversial and convoluted issue, it should get right to the meat with a plan that will deliver immediate results, clear up confusion, and get people moving in one direction.

But since it's the Democrats we're talking about let's see what they have in store. To me, so far it looks like a two pronged attack that hinges on:

Getting rid of "Don't ask don't tell."

Re-instituting the Draft.

Look, I'm not saying both of those issues aren't worth discussing. But now? Now? Really...now? Now's the best time to bring these up?

So just after an election where the Dem's claimed that their victory came from moving to the middle, they lead with gays in the military and the draft. I'm not sure what "middle" they're talking about and I don't recall hearing anyone talking about either before the election. Actually, I take that back. I do remember hearing people talking about a draft, but mostly in the "Oh man what a disaster that would be" vein. Don't they remember how Clinton was hammered on the gays in the military issue? Folks think leading with that was the biggest strategic blunder of his Presidency and there wasn't even a war going on. Assuming the Dems know Dem history, why do they think leading with that now is a good idea? Down the road? Sure. But for God's sake, don't lead with it.

I think the Republican's would love to have another election right now. Like today. I also think that the Dems would lose the House and Senate all over again. My bet is that there's a complete reversal of humor in Washington. Before the election, the Dem's huddled around and giggled as the GOP fell apart. Now, I can see the Republican's huddled around giggling as the Dem's fall apart.

PS. Here's my new analogy for the two parties. The Dems are like your zany Uncle Albert. Fun and wacky, always entertaining, thinks his "ideas" are great, but even the kids roll their eyes, always saying, "Ok, I got it this time", never does, but he's ultimately harmless. The GOP is like your crazy Uncle Theo. Thinks everyone's out to get him, talks real loud, yells at the TV, bumps into everyone at the buffet line, and Mom keeps him away from the knives. But Mom also calls him when "theres a little problem." Sometimes it's fixed, sometimes it's worse, but what the hell, he's family, and you know you can't turn to Albert.

Why do the Dems like to punish success?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean finds himself defending his strategy just 10 days after a monumental Democratic victory (third myth down). I'm not a fan of Mr. Dean, but I have to give credit to him on his 50 State Strategy. For too long now the Dems have run from any fight they think they can't win. By definition, the scope of obvious wins goes down every year, and the Dems were dutifully following that spiral towards irrelevancy. Dean's plan to spend money in every state, even state's where the party won't win is not only a challenge to a fight, but it lays down roots for victory later. In the short term, it causes the GOP to spend money and fight in areas it has locked up (every Presidential election the GOP candidate heads to CA, they know they won't win, but it forces the Dem to go back to a strong-hold, spend time and money, and is always good for some press about how the GOP may have a chance this time - great strategy), and you never know where you're going to get lucky. Pressure causes mistakes, and heading into the stretch, a lot of Republican's who looked safe found themselves in a fight, and some lost. Dean, for all of his flaws sees this. He believes that the only way the Dems can grow is to go after the "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." I got that. I'm from the south, these guys exist and the Dems have written them off (Insert snide comment about the liberal North East media, ie Yankees not understanding the south here). In any case, for too long the party has had a strong NE bias, which shows in election results.

The combination of the NE bias and the fear of getting into fights they can't win doomed the Dems. Dean's nuts, but at least he's not afraid to fight, and he knows you can't win on the NE alone.

However, since Dean bucked both of those long held Democratic beliefs and won, he must be cast from the party lest success breed more success.

Finally, why anyone listens to Carville just amazes me.

33

"[My] libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly [I] will become more extreme as time goes on."

Bush's weird comparison between Iraq and Vietnam

Much has been said about W's trip to Vietnam. But what I don't get is why he thinks drawing comparison's with Iraq is any kind of good idea. Sure he says Vietnam is a lesson in patience, and that we need patience in Iraq, but at the end of the day Vietnam was the ultimate cut-and-run and the feared domino affect never dominoed. We left, Asia didn't fall under Soviet Control, and now Vietnam has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. So...cut-and-run, no feared result, big payoff. Great analogy W.

To me, he should be avoiding any comparisons period. None are good, none suit his goals, and none work. His message should be that we can forgive, move on and develop normal relations with former enemies (The GOP was wrong to withdraw the Vietnam Bill - here's some back story). A message like that, aimed at the greater Middle East region, may help mollify all parties. But for crying out loud, quit forcing an Iraq/Vietnam link.

Fleiss turns Tyson out

Sometimes things are just so bizarre that I can't even get quippy. My mind was aflutter, but nothing I could come up could beat the real thing.

Mike Tyson is set to be male prostitute, gigolo if you will, working for former Hollywood madame Heidi Fliess in Nevada.

I checked, it's not April 1, so hopefully this is some kind of hoax or publicity stunt. If not, I'm fairly sure Gigolo Tyson is the Gummo Marx of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Bizzaro like Democrat economics

Despite all the talk that Democrats won on a centrist/conservative platform, and talk that the Dems are moving towards the middle, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has decided to lead with raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.45 or about a 41% increase. Kennedy feels that he has an iron-clad mandate for this move.

"If there is one message from this election that emerged loud and clear, it's that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty."

Yup, the one message wasn't corruption/ethics, it wasn't the war, it was minimum wage. I get that he's looking at all the initiatives that passed, but using that logic anti-gay marriage initiatives passed 7-1. That's a huge mandate given his standards, can we expect him to introduce a Federal ban on gay marriage? As a side note, avid readers of this blog (Hi Mom!) know that I do think American workers are underpaid, but that I prefer market solutions over Federal solutions.

Let's look at his other solutions. College tuitions are "too high" so he wants to increase the money in circulation by raising loan amounts and decreasing interest rates to pay them. Now that will surely bring tuitions down. I mean anytime you give a group more money, prices in the area go down right? For example, if you want to decrease inflation you print more money. I honestly think the Democrats live in Bizzaro world when it comes to economics.

Perhaps most troubling is this quote on how to pay for all this.

"There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is, who's going to get it,"

Well clearly not the tax payers. Do you think that idea even crossed his mind?

The good news is that we have a Republican in the White House to stop this kind of rampant spending. Surely W's learned a valuable lesson from the mid-term "thumping," and will return the GOP to it's small-government roots. Let's go to the White House

President Bush on Wednesday said increasing the national minimum wage is likely an issue on which he could cooperate with Democratic leaders in Congress.

"I believe in a lot of issues we can find common ground and there's a significant difference between common ground and abandoning principles,"

Awwww crap.

Immigration quick hits

Two quick posts on the immigration front.

One, a California judge struck down Escondido's law forcing landlords to get verification of tenants immigration status and give that to the city for proofing. I'm not going to pretend to understand the legalese of the suit, but I want to take this chance to say that I think its a bad law. Again, we have law enforcement to take care of these things. Plus, I can't figure out how it works. Do landlords ask for status from everyone? I don't have any immigration proof. Or does she (I'm so progressive) only target those she thinks are immigrants? If it's everyone, does it make sense to have a city look over every applicant? Escondido has about 135,000 people, seems like a lot of forms to clarify.

The other is about flags. In Pahrump, NV you can't fly a foreign flag alone. Off the bat, this a gross violation of the First Amendment. What's also interesting is what does "fly" mean with respect to this law? Looking at the reason behind the law,

flag restriction was a reaction to nationwide demonstrations in May against a crackdown on illegal immigration. He said he didn't like seeing protesters waving Mexican flags and demanding immigrants not go to work that day.

it may mean just carrying a flag of another country. What about on a shirt? Or a bumper sticker? I love the sensibility of any law that starts from, "I don't like it when people..."

However I came around when I read this,

"In Pahrump, we had Mexican restaurants closed that day," he complained. "Only one restaurant stayed open."

Now that I understand. It's totally unacceptable to get between a man and his burrito. Why there oughtta be a law...

Terrorist suspects have no rights...or do they?

According to W,

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts

Or so the Justice Department said in a court filing on November 13.

Indefinite suspension based on a hunch. If only there were some kind of protection against that. Maybe some kind of idea that the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution to protect against Government abuse. Maybe even something older than America. Something that could stop Kings. Some kind of memo. No, no...a writ! A writ would do it.

Maybe Chris Dodd (D-CT) knows what I'm talking about?

Hey he does. Looks like Dodd will introduce a bill restoring Habeus Corpus. Looking the bill over it seems that it will undo most of the Military Commissions Act and my bet is that if passed, it will be vetoed. The question is can his bill gather enough votes to overcome a veto? There is some evidence that some Republican's held their nose and voted, or if you're Arlen Spector (R-PA) you dump your convictions and vote for a "patently unconstitutional" bill you hope "the courts will clean up." Maybe he'll find his convictions and vote for Dodd's bill. Anyway, looks like Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also has a bill out giving HC rights to suspected terrorists.

I hate it, but the Dems are getting my hopes up. Much like my Senior Prom, the night is starting out with such hope, but I have the feeling this will end in the same disastrous manner.

PS. Stalin, if you follow the treasure hunt of links, you'll find that I took one HC link from the lefties, and one from the righters. I'm all about the fairness.

Thus ends the really bizzare start to Pelosi's SOH career

Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) defeated Pelosi's pick for Majority Leader, John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), and it wasn't that close 148-86. I guess you might call that a "thumping."

All-in-all a bad start. Someone adept at the inside game would know that support for Murtha was weak, at best, and avoided the fight. I appreciate Pelosi's loyalty, but Murtha's Iraq views are out of touch with all but the farthest left of the Democratic Party. The "Immediate Withdrawal" crowd will put most of the Dem agenda and the prospects for building on November's momentum at risk. While Murtha was praised for his willingness to speak up on Iraq, I always assumed his role was to speak out for the extreme position, grab some press, and leave the moderates to take the "realistic" approach and grab the middle ranks of US voters. I also figured Pelosi just overplayed her hand in backing a man who apparently was sure to lose. But injecting before Hoyer spoke that,

she wanted to "acknowledge the magnificent contribution of Mr. Murtha to this debate on the war in Iraq."

Even the most jr. player knows that you don't try to steal the spotlight from someones victory speech. So not only did she step on Hoyer's moment, she highlighted the most extreme aspect of the Democratic party, and the thing that voters fear about the Dems. I still feel that the voters wanted some kind of undefined change for victory in voting for the Dems, and did not give the them a mandate for immediate withdrawal.

Plus, Murtha was very outspoken about Pelosi's new "Ethics" campaign, semi-famously calling it "crap." While he later said he didn't mean what he said, it was an odd way to return the favor of loyalty. All of which only highlights his own ethics issues, notably Abscam and more recently getting the always popular "plus five to watch" mention by Beyond Delay, a group that puts out a list of the 20 most corrupt politicians in Congress.

Odd, just odd. Again, I appreciate loyalty, but surely there was another way to reward Murtha without immediately risking losing an election (especially when she should have known she didn't have the votes), immediately showing weakness to a GOP frothing at the mouth to reclaim power, and immediately looking hypocritical on the goal of cleaning up the House. Reading her goals for the first 100 hours, I didn't see any of the above.

None of this even gets into Pelosi's choice to have an impeached judge (Alcee Hastings, D-FL) take over the House Intelligence Committee over an apparently qualified woman (Jane Harman D-CA), who may have made the mistake of rubbing Pelosi the wrong way. Another blow to "Draining the Swamp." Loyalty over ethics, where have we seen this story?

[Added: 11/17. Here's some background on the conflict between Pelosi and Harman-None of it makes Pelosi look good, or inspires me to expect anything great from her.]

Just one week after getting tossed from power, things are looking up for the GOP.

Big Three and Hillary agree, we need more government.

The Big Three automakers met with President Bush on Tuesday to discuss ways to make Detroit more competitive. While they felt that they made their point,

"It was a tremendous dialogue with the president this time."

W's quote is somewhat less optimistic.

"These leaders are making difficult decisions, tough choices to make sure that their companies are competitive in a global economy," Bush said. "And I'm confident that they're making the right decisions."

I don't read, "I'm here to rescue you" in that sentence. Good for W.

However, Hillary's words are good for Detroit (and bad for the US free market)

"I hope that this meeting marks the beginning of a renewed commitment to a public-private partnership in which government and industry work together to address the challenges that are so important to both the American economy and American workers," she said in a letter she sent to Bush, which was released just before the meeting.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the best way the Government can help business is by saying, "Here, let me get out of your way." Not, "Hey what special breaks can we give your industry." I don't want a "renewed commitment to a public-private partnership." I want a renewed commitment to a free-market and less government spending.

The bottom line is that Japan produces profitable vehicles in America. Japan also produce high quality cars in America. Might profitable, high quality cars be the reason for Detroit's woes? Rather than complain, how about adapting? All the protections the Big Three now enjoy have only prevented them from having to adapt, which has only made them weaker. By being able to always have the lowest cost car in a category, Detroit wound up competing on price alone, which made them commodity producers. The only way to make money as a commodity producer is to sell a lot, cheaply, and hope for slight advantages in margin. Detroit's put itself in the position of only being the option for people who can't afford quality, or who are being patriotic and assume that "Ford" is American. That's not a long term successful strategy. Without the protections, Detroit would lose the low cost advantage that they've grown addicted to and be forced to produce high quality, customer friendly vehicles. At that point they would become stronger and be on the road (heh) towards long term success. More government help only delays the inevitable. Either fail, or adapt.

Hell's Angels in Arizona rumble

The Hell's Angels are in a battle to keep their Cave Creek clubhouse (Clubhouse? Seriously? Shouldn't biker gangs have cooler names for their hang-out? Something like dens, lairs, or pits. Even crack addicts have crackhouses. They wouldn't be caught dead in a "clubhouse." Clubhouses make think of Spanky and the gang, not a biker gang.) Anyway, here's the background.

The house was raided two years ago as law enforcement agents raided Hell's Angels clubs statewide as part of a federal sting known as Operation Black Biscuit.

But prosecutors' case collapsed this year, with most of the defendants going free or pleading guilty to minor charges. No one from the Cave Creek charter was convicted.

The end right? Nope.

Meanwhile, state attorneys had filed seizure papers alleging that the clubhouse was acquired with criminal racketeering funds...Eberhardt contested the state's claim that he had used criminal racketeering funds. He won.

Now that's the end right? Nope.

He only owned half the property. The other half was owned by the heirs of Seybert, who was gunned down outside a Phoenix tavern by an unknown assailant in March 2003. Because Hoover's heirs did not fight the confiscation, the state became half-owner of the property.

So a raid against the Hell's Angels produced no real arrests, and the racketeering claim was also shot down, but the State, never having won a court case in the matter, still owns half this clubhouse. The kicker,

State lawyers would not comment on why they are trying to acquire the house or where the money to buy it would come from.

Gotta love the system.

Look, I'm not saying that the Hell's Angels are a bunch of nice guys getting picked on by the man. In fact, most of what I've read says I'm not inviting these guys over for Thanksgiving (however, I've got some ink so I'm down). But, Arizona's in the wrong here. Forfeiture laws are getting too vague, and too onerous. The weird thing is I can't figure out Arizona's strategy here. If they pay more than the $160,000 and win, then half the proceeds will go to a man they think built the clubhouse with illegal money. Why pay him off? Doesn't that move, in effect, launder the money for Mr. Eberhardt ? Shouldn't Mr. Eberhardt view that has a major victory?

On the flip side, if he wins the bid, Mr. Eberhardt will pay a one time tax of about $80,000. Nice victory tax. First he pays the legal fees paid to prove his innocence, does it again, then he has to buy back his clubhouse from the very State that he just proved wrong. Moreover, this move robs his partner's estate of the chance to seek free market value for their ownership of the clubhouse.

Everyone looses. Arizona's tax payers, Mr. Eberhardt , and Mr. Seybert's estate. Nice move by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

PS. This post is mostly insurance in case I ever go to jail. I will print it and show it to Maggot or whoever and try to stay alive another day. "Me and you against the man!" Like the members of that other clubhouse say, "Be prepared."

He's baaaa-aaaack.

Trent Lott's gunning for Minority Whip.

Interesting move. Say what you want about the guy, he did seem willing to work with Dems, understands compromise, and may actually be humbled by his prior resignation.

On the other hand, I've heard him talking positively about universal health care, and he could be out for some payback (from both the Dems and those Republican's who helped usher him out/didn't support him). But mostly, bringing him back only stunts the growth of the next generation of GOP leadership, or this could be an indication that there isn't much talent on the vine.

More dividends from the new regime

Looks like the Dems will scuttle the "Border Fence." Hooray, my bet is that most Republicans are glad too. The fence just seemed like more like a "get out the vote" move than a practical solution to illegal immigration. As a quick side note, it seems that this particular issue never caught fire. Not only was immigration not a big factor among voters, moderates (or those who favor a comprehensive solution, like W - a former border state governor) did much better in close elections than the radicals.

The problem with the GOP's wedge issue politics is the same as the Dems "we're not Republican's" strategy. Neither does anything. At some point the electorate wants action, at some point people just get emotionally drained, at some point you miss, or the other ceases failing, and at some point people just tune out until you deliver.

I think the GOP understands that now, I wonder if the Dem's have figured it out too?

Sisyphus, er, Bush still pushing Bolton up the Hill

W is still trying to get Bolton approved by the Senate. Gotta admire the moxie, but it also makes you really ponder Iraq. I mean if W can't face the fact that Bolton will no way no how get confirmed by the Senate, then it does make one wonder about his ability to deal with reality in Iraq.

My guess is that W's hoping for a kind of "parting gift" from the GOP Senate. But they're not real happy with the guy, and they don't want to go into the real session in January as the minority having pulled a final maneuver as the majority to get Bolton approved. He's not worth the capital.

Having said that, it's not like Bolton's been a disaster. Well, or great either, I mean who knows? With something like the UN it doesn't really matter who you send. You could send the best diplomat ever, or one of the worst, and the delta in performance, or quality, of the UN session won't be affected. All real relations with the other Security Council members (the only body in the UN that matters) is handled at a level well above the UN Ambassador, and relations with all the other nations are better served by the direct Ambassador. It's not like W's asking Bolton, "Hey did we get that vote on North Korea sanctions?" It's all decided by higher-ups in advance of any vote, and everyone knows the score. I think you could hold a national lottery for the position of UN Ambassador and not much would change.

So I say, give W his nomination. My feeling is that the President is the US' chief Ambassador and he should be able to pick his surrogates. Personally, I think this all started with Helms canning Weld's appointment of Ambassador to Mexico.

Wiccan follow-up

I know H-Blog readers are riveted (spell bound?) to the saga of Wiccan's getting tombstones. Fans probably recall from the first installment that Wiccan's are recognized by the military, but do not have an officially approved engraving for tombstones in military cemeteries.

Deceased hero Wiccan Sgt. Patrick's plight was resolved when the State of Nevada superseded the VA and gave him his plaque. But his widow is fighting on for other Wiccans and filed suit against the Feds. Good for her.

While I haven't been able to find any opposition to the idea, the VA is dragging it's feet.

In memos and letters cited by the lawsuit, Lindee L. Lenox, director of memorial programs for the veterans agency, said the government was reviewing the process for evaluating and approving new emblems and would not accept new applications until the review was complete.

So first the VA has to define the process for evaluating and approving new emblems, then it will get around to working on this specific case. I wonder if the Wiccan's have a spell for holding your breath?

My shirt rocks! No...seriously.

Australian Scientists have invented a shirt that turns movement into music.

The bad news: Now your nerdy kid won't ever leave his room. Or at least you should hope so. If he's doing the "real air guitar" think in public I think it's grounds for pantsing your own kid.

The good news: At least he's getting some exercise. Plus, if he's doing it in public, think of all the running he'll get in by trying to get away from you.

Bonus good news: You also won't have to worry about him getting some girl pregnant. Using this shirt is the ultimate abstinence tool.

As a side note, I see loading it with a touring bands music and selling it as the ultimate concert shirt.

For whom the road tolls

The DenverPostcom is rerunning a three part series today (one, two, three) about the future of Toll Roads in Colorado.

While I was originally going to focus on the roads, I want to take a quick segue into a this quote in the "Roads to Riches" or "one" above, that discussed the fact that most toll revenue projections are well below forecasts. You can read the article to see if you buy the "Chinese Wall" argument (I don't), but what got me was the dismissal of the "investors aren't getting accurate information" argument (they're not)

bonds are purchased by sophisticated investors who understand what they are getting into. And the official statements warn that the revenue projections could be in error and that the bonds are for the consideration of experienced investors.

"These are not mom-and-pop people," said Pamela Bailey- Campbell, a consultant Vollmer hired to help it prepare the traffic study.

However, almost by definition these types of bonds are purchased by buyers seeking safety (low risk, low return), especially in these tax-exempt types of purchases. The target buyer is generally older, looking to protect their assets either for retirement, or during retirement, and not altogether too sophisticated. A default, or revaluation of the yield can devastate them. These aren't junk bonds, they're not foreign bonds, they are bonds with State approval. They are both sold and perceived to be safe. M(r)s. Bailey-Cambell is deluding herself if she feels otherwise.

Now on to the my original intention.

Historically, I've supported toll roads. I view them as a user fee, which I find superior to general taxation. However, the increasing direction of toll roads towards public/private agreements is giving me pause, especially when eminent domain issues arise. Going back to Kelo, the main argument from the City was that the city would be better off with the tax revenue from improvements made to the land that was seized (stolen) from the original owners and transferred to the new owners (hello communism). Looking at public/private toll roads through that lens, it's essentially the same argument. The State is giving your land to someone else in the hopes that they will do more with it than you. Apparently, with toll roads there's a lot of "hope" built into the system as most roads are under performers, even three years out.

a review of 23 new turnpikes nationwide shows that a clear majority are failing to meet revenue projections to justify their costs.

Even with adjustments for the break-in period in the opening years, 86 percent of new toll roads in eight states failed to meet expectations in their first full year.

By year three, 75 percent - 15 of the 20 that have been open that long - remained poor performers...

The $416 million, 11-mile parkway from Broomfield to E-470 has attracted just half the cars forecast since it opened in 2003.

So the basis for a taking may be greatly flawed.

Having said that, I still favor tolls. My solution is that if a private enterprise feels that it can make a profit from a toll road, it should have to buy the necessary land on its own. My bet is that my little clause makes the cost of purely private toll roads prohibitive, which is mostly why the public/private relationship is needed. But maybe if you did it through the equity market instead of the bond market, a solution would develop.

The American Foreign Legion

Slow news day, so I'm going to debut my idea for an American Foreign Legion (AFL). Much like the French Foreign Legion (FFL), it would offer a solution to two big problems facing the country today. Illegal Immigrants and the need for more soldiers.

With the FFL, after you serve your term, you're granted French Citizenship. The AFL would do the same (at least until it merges with the winner of the NFL v. CIO steel cage match). This way we could offer citizenship to those who earn it by protecting and serving American up front. No need to climb fences and take you chances in the desert to get to America (although those are useful skills for military service - I guess actually they would be climbing walls and braving deserts, but now we'd call it Basic Training). Anyway, who would begrudge citizenship to anyone who served in the military?

Plus, just think about how all those able bodied recruits would help fill out our military. We could actually let the National Guard go home, we could bring our basic recruitment standards up, and imagine how bi-lingual our AFL would be.

I say, bring 'em in, let them serve five years, let them gain skills, they'll have to learn the language, they'd have the opportunity to gain an education, all while helping our military, it's a win, win..win...and...win.

Andrew Sullivan wrote a book (and he'll tell you this every chance he gets)

Allow me to vent for a bit. I'm a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, I think his insight and ideas are interesting, and he's been on the anti-torture brigade since the beginning (which moves him up any list I have). However, he wrote a book called The Conservative Soul and its ruined him. Every since the book came out, it's dominated his site. Every third post has a huge picture of the cover, and just about every post at least mentions it. I get that its his blog, and he's free to promote his book however he sees fit, but at this point he's even less subtle about the fact that he wrote a book than Rush was back in the days when he did his TV show in front of a bookshelf loaded with copies of his book.

I used to hit his site fairly frequently, but now he's like visiting your grandpa. You like the guy, but you're afraid to talk to him because its going to be nothing but stories about him. I mean, if his site were a drinking game, and mentions of his book required a shot, you'd be blitzed by the fifth post. The weird thing is that he's English. Usually they're much more reserved about themselves. Maybe all these years in the US have rubbed off on him, "Hey, hey, look at me. LOOK AT MEEEEEEEE, I wrote a book."

Not a classy post from me, but I had to get that off my chest. He has a great site that's become unreadable, and I've decided to handle it like an eight year old. But I am giving his book a plug - hey, all publicity is good publicity.

Mid-Term elections pay first dividend

Looks like W's Wonderful Wireless Wiretapping Wager won't be taken up by the lame duck Congress. Furthermore, it also appears that any future version won't be of the "do whatever you want and tell us what you feel like" variety.

Oooooh, I wonder what he'll decide?

While Sen. John McCain says about his presidential bid "I certainly haven't made any decision," he does think he'll make up his mind by the end of December.

In yet another attempt to scoop the MSM, I'm calling it that McCain will indeed run for President in 2008. Remember, you read it here first.

Once again, Hydrablog is ahead of the MSM

Article in The Hill newspaper, "GOP furious about timing of Rumsfeld resignation." Key quote,

"The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference," one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority."

Readers of the H-Blog were tipped to this a full two days before readers of The Hill, in the post, "Rumsfeld first casualty of Dem victory."Key quote,

Today was the absolute worst day to fire Rummy. A month ago, yes. Would have blunted a lot of national concerns about Iraq (and it looks like this was an election based on national ideas). If he was on shaky ground, make the move to signal that you are open to changes, get people talking about something else besides "Rumsfeld must go" and take some momentum away from a surging Dem party.

And the icing on top,

If I was a losing GOPer, I would be furious.

See, some blogs give you the news, Hydrablog gives you what the news means.

Clearly Patrick O'Connor, if that's his real name, read the H-Blog and went off and filed his story. Don't think we're not watching you Mr. O'Connor.

Rush-ing to judgement (Short Version)

Today Rush Limbaugh admitted his show was just an act.

TOUCHDOWN! The crowd goes crazy.

Unknown Blogger grabs sharpie from sock and signs football.

Stalin Malone relives day he found out there was no Santa Clause.

Rush-ing to judgement (Long Version)

Avert your eyes Stalin.

Rush today says that GOP losses "liberated" him. Key points.

no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does. I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own.

And,

here have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has.

Also,

t has been a challenge to come in here and look at some of the weaknesses and some of the missed opportunities and try to cover for them and make up for them

I agree with everything Rush said. My point to Stalin for years is that Rush is not the voice for truth, he's a GOP mouthpiece, a sort of cigar smoking cheerleader. To go to Rush for intellectual honesty is like going to a palm reader for advice about your future. She knows why she's there, and you know why you're there, so all sides agree. It's not about truth, its about feeling better. This is Rush. He's not about truth, he's about making his listeners feel better.

I don't think it was always this way. Like the GOP, his message became about staying in power. On the march towards power he could afford to be honest because the stakes weren't as high. It takes discipline to take power. If some random Republican steps out of line, punish him, keep the focus on the mission (to take power) and keep everyone locked in. That was the position he enjoyed up until 1994. However, once the his team took control, discipline meant the possibility of short term loss of power. Honesty risked loss. Rather than risk honesty, he took the path of "cover" and the GOP grew fat and lazy. Rush started playing the "relative" game.

Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

Relativism isn't discipline. Relativism is a path towards the continuing downward spiral. On election day, it spiraled past "loser."

I believe that Rush and the GOP faced the same dilemma, power v. integrity of the mission, and both chose power. However, it looks like Rush is geared up to be a real voice of conservatism, already turning on W.

The president during the campaign said that he was convinced that if the Democrats won power, that the war on terror would suffer a setback. They're not that interested in victory. He totally took that back today. He said (paraphrased), "Well, people say things on campaigns. You know, the campaign's over and the Democrats won, and so it's over. What do you want?" It was the "What do you want?" press conference. "You want immigration reform? Ha-ha-ha! You got it. You want a minimum wage increase? Yoooooou got it! You want Rumsfeld? Yoooooou got him!" Bush has seen this before, and this is how you get out of town in two years with an approval rating that is above the thirties and maybe into the fifties or the sixties. Stem cells are another thing. The whole point here is: "We're going to do everything we can to make everybody happy. We're going to do what we can to make everybody happy."

If Rush is really on the case, I think it's better for the country. I'm not a fan, but he has a large base, and if he focuses back on conservative ideals, and not partisan flattery, then maybe conservatism can make a comeback.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.

2008 Crystal Ball

It's never too early for a prediction for 2008, so here's mine. Democratic President, Democratic House, Republican Senate.

Feel free to print this and put it on your refrigerator.

Rumsfeld first casualty of Dem victory

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stepped down today, and will be replaced by ex-CIA director Robert Gates.

Here's what I don't get. Today was the absolute worst day to fire Rummy. A month ago, yes. Would have blunted a lot of national concerns about Iraq (and it looks like this was an election based on national ideas). If he was on shaky ground, make the move to signal that you are open to changes, get people talking about something else besides "Rumsfeld must go" and take some momentum away from a surging Dem party. At least it would have given cover to GOP candidates, they could have talked about the new plan/leadership going forward (maybe W didn't want people throwing a departed Rummy under the bus before the election - but they certainly will now anyway). A month from now, sure whatever. But the day after getting trounced? If I was a losing GOPer, I would be furious. Plus, it looks weak in the face of the election. Like W sacrificed Rummy to gain some kind of good will with Pelosi (not saying that's what he did, but Pelosi's first move was to call for Rumsfeld's job - way to agree W). I dunno, maybe W felt like the slaughter was Rumsfeld's fault, and this was his way of punishing him. Or, he may give Rummy a medal, who knows? But the timing on this was not only bad, it was weird.

Dems cruise. Clinton gets final revenge for '94.

Dems get almost twice the amount needed to take the House, and if recounts hold, will take the Senate. Ouch. Long, long two years ahead for W.

I think all credit (blame?) rests with Clinton, the William variety. Want to know how? Re-read the Contract with America from my last entry. I think the GOP had a vision coming out of '94, but got caught up in the Clinton scandals, became enamored with the idea of being America's moral authority, rode that wave through several elections, and lost sight of their mission. Consequentially, when they lost the moral high-ground there was no over-arching mission to save them and they got slaughtered. Actually, I take that back, the mission became staying in power forever. When the plan is to stay in power no matter what, the plan fails. Such a move works outside of democracy, but in a democracy, at some point, people start to lose emotion for "Let's stay in power!" and want more than helping keep a select few people in power. In the end, the GOP wanted to stay in power and the moral authority card allowed that for a few years. But moral authority and power at all costs were unsustainable, cyclical, and cynical concepts. Once it fell apart, it fell apart hard.

This is the lesson the Dems need to acknowledge. I still don't see that the Dems have any idea what to do with their new power. If they take the same, "Stay in power!" approach, then 2008 is going to be a deeply divided, deeply bitter election.

Quick hits.
Arizona became the first state to reject the Gay rights Amendment. I was happy. Others against such bans are saying that the AZ loss is a sign that the momentum is running out on this movement. Me, losing 7-1 hardly seems like the tide is turning, but you have to admire the optimism.

Ohio passed a sweeping no public smoking ban (I would have voted against). Big tobacco tried to get a measure passed that would have allowed smoking in bars, bowling alleys and racetracks. Ahhhh, how glamorous smoking has become. From Big Tobacco's side, if you're down to trying to hold the line on bowling alleys, and you still lose, well, it must be hard to fall below the gays on society's social pariah scale.

Mary J initiatives fail in Nevada and Colorado. Dude, like that's a total bummer. Had it passed, at least the GOP could've gotten stoned, eased out for awhile, developed a plan to trounce Dems in '08 but tragically forget it the next morning.

Election day quick hits

One, surprise! Kerry did his best to lose this election too. From the dems side, at least this effectively sidelined one of the worst politicians going down the stretch, and two, hopefully this will put the final nail in his idea (threat?) to run again in 2008.

I think the Dems will pull it out and take at least either the House or Senate. What's interesting is that compared to the GOP takeover in 1994, this was a really pathetic campaign. Yes the GOP took advantage of scandals and unhappiness with Clinton to ride a wave to victory, but they also put out the Contract with America. While I wasn't a fan, at least they created something that was a reason to vote for them, they didn't just sit there and hope the dems would self-destruct badly enough to hand it to them. So while I think they'll get one, or both chambers, I don't see them holding either for long. There was no sense of mission, and without a mission it's hard to keep going. The GOP won't self-destruct forever (I think), so at some point the Dems are going to have to do something. That's when the wheels will fall off. My advice to them is to not get too cozy in their new seats.

If I'm wrong and the GOP holds on, then the Democratic Party is officially on "Death Watch." It's the end. Which is why its so weird that there was no sense of urgency coming from them. This is the most important election I can remember them facing and until the last day it was still, "I hope the GOP falls apart enough for us to win."

Election wrap-up tomorrow. Mark you calendars.

PS. Having re-read the Contract with America for this post, all I can say is "wow." This contract wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Seriously, hit that link and read and wonder, "Hey, whatever happened to that"

I blame sweet and sour pork

China has 60 million obese people. This is good news for all those who think China will become the other pole in a future bi-polar world. As their government begins to assume the medical costs of all these obese people later in life (hooray Communism), the economic burden should greatly hamper their ability to really challenge us. Combine this with the high number of Chinese who smoke and China may crumble under the burden of hundreds of millions of unhealthy folks. The single best thing we can do is promote fast food and US snacks to China. Who would have thought that our invading general would be General McDonald's.

I go on vacation and poof, half my friends abandon me.

Received an e-mail from the Libertarian Party. Solid stuff, one typo, no big deal, but then they hit me with this.

There are just over 100,000 official members of the Libertarian Party...

Whoa! I thought there were over 200,000 members of the party, what gives? Was it me? Was my joining the cause of 100,000 defections? Do I have B.O? Someone help me out here.

Back in the saddle again

The title to this blog not only signifies that I'm back from my vacation, but also sets you generationally. Does Gene Autry's voice sing the song in your head, or is it Steven Tyler's?

Anyway, flew through Dallas after being off the grid for a solid week and discovered that Rick Perry is a shoe-in to win despite not being able to garner more than 40% of the votes and while having a very high "disapproval" rating. Why? Because there are 4 gubernatorial candidates in TX, all polling above 10%. The other three are essentially splitting the vote amongst themselves, leaving Perry the win. My solution is simple, and I think it should be applied to all elections nationwide (before you say it, yes I think all of my ideas should be implemented nationwide, including "Unknown Blogger Appreciation Day").

Do away with "plurality" elections and switch to "majority" elections, and have a provision for run-offs. Top two get into the steel cage and duke it out for the title. Having someone in office without 50.01% of the vote is a lose-lose. Elected officials don't have a real mandate but are forced to act as if they do, causing everyone to dig in and get bitter. The electorate does not have a chance to settle on a winner, causing the 60% who didn't vote for the winner to feel cheated and they become either caustic or disenfranchised. It's just too hard to effectively govern. Also, a run-off provision allows more candidates to run, allowing more voices and representation, because there is no threat of allowing the "common enemy" to win. You can run a nice campaign, get your ideas heard and respected, knowing that come election day, you'll fall off, but allow the candidate with the most similar views a chance for your votes come run-off time. Run-offs provide for a larger, more encompassing democracy. Finally, and by default, if you can't win 51% as a Republican in Texas, well, maybe you need to take that ol' horse into the sunset.