Whose the Problem?

Farfour the Muslim Mouse is dead. He was killed by the brutal forces of Israel. And, sadly, his execution was televised for all to see. And, even more sadly, it was televised explicitly for children to see. Who would do such a terrible thing to innocent children? Wicked Israel? No. Their parents who are supporters of Hamas.

I'm not sure anything quite so clearly shows the difference between "them" and "us". Sure the Palestinian terrorists have been murdering Israeli civilians for years. But the Europeans and many of our enlightened "intellectuals" have found it easy to explain that away as freedom fighting or the consequences of Israeli oppression. But how flexible must your morality be to consider the murdering of children's characters in front of an audience of children as anything other than complete depravity? And keep in mind, this is not the work of some fringe extremist group, these people are the popularly elected leaders of Palestine (if you believe there is such a place)! If this is Islam, then Islam should be done away with. If it isn't, then true Muslims need to get off their moral rear ends and start fighting against this continuing degrading of Islamic culture by people, who, if they worship anything, must worship a demon.

Nothing is more clear than who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in the Middle East Problem. If you ever find yourself sympathizing with Hamas for any reason, please, seek counseling. You may not actually be evil, you may just be confused.

The end of a dream?

The California Department of Health Services is moving to revoke the license of Martin Luther King Jr-Harbor Hospital (aka King-Drew, aka Killer King), effectively shutting the place down.

If you're new to the story a woman died in a pool of her own blood as a janitor mopped around her and as her boyfriend desperately called 911 for assistance while they were in the hospital. The kicker is that most of this is backed up by video and 911 tapes. This article goes into the unfortunate story.

My point with this article is the Killer King is a public hospital set up with the best of intentions. Originally, it was built as a response to the Watt's riots after one study finding was that lack of access to medical attention was one of the reason's for the riots. Another public hospital set up with the best intentions, Walter Reed recently made some news of its own. While there are many public hospitals that don't mock you as you die on the waiting room floor, nor do they put you in moldy rooms. However, I guarantee you that overwhelmingly, in any city, the public hospital is the least preferred option. This is a very important nugget to remember as we head into an election season where Universal Government Run Health Care promises to be a big topic.

Government's are not set up to run your health care. At best what governments do is big picture, broad strokes tasks. The finer points of addressing your particular medical needs is simply something it cannot do. For all the well meanings and best intentions there is no escaping the idea that the government is the sledge hammer trying to work on your health care microchip.

Its morally compelling to want to use the resources of the government to provide health care for all, no way does any caring person really feel that all US citizens deserve the best medical attention possible. The government has a lot of money and power, and surely should be able to make this happen. Right? Wrong. It's just not the right tool, and all the money and power won't change that. History is rife with military examples of this point, and many believe it is happening right now in Iraq. Good intentions, money and power do not guarantee success, not even close. The right idea, the willingness to do it get you there much faster. I know that we, as Americans, have the willingness, so the goal now is to find the right idea. Turning everything over to the feds is not it.

I don't like having an only "not so" post, I prefer to offer solutions rather than pure criticism. I'm making an exception here. One, because I don't want any solution offered up to take away from my focus on the idea that the Feds can't do it. And two, sometimes deleting an option by itself is helpful. Ask Sherlock.

Good For Something?

The Republicans have done precious little to improve our great republic over the past 6 years. But credit must be given where credit is due. The senate shot down the Pathetic Pandering to Big Labor Bill that this blog whined about several months ago (I'd put in a fancy link to it, but I don't know how...find the post somewhere below...show a little initiative). The bill would end the requirement that secret ballots be used when voting to unionize. That's right. Not allowing workers to vote in secret about forming a union BENEFITS workers. If you understand how this could possibly be true please notify this blog immediately. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen more obvious pandering in my long and storied life. And what makes it more than just run of the mill offensive is that it claims to protect the very group that it is shafting. It also shows how little unions really care about workers. Unions care about unions. And democrats care about union money. And workers are just patsies to both. I'm begging a union supporter to set me straight. Show me this isn't as Orwellian is it appears. And show me why all elections from now on should be held by having voters wear a t-shirt supporting their candidate in a group photo taken by the Jimmy Carter.

The Real Mystery: Who Voted for Her?

No one knows what to think about our immigration problems. Not only does an elected city councilman from LA not understand what to do about the problem..she didn't even know she was part of it. For some reason a person deemed competent enough to lead her fellow Americans didn't realize that not being born here may actually effect her resident status. Now, I don't expect Mrs. Meyer to know everything, but isn't it a no-brainer that you would want to look into what restrictions apply to you knowing you weren't born in the country where you are running for public office? And trying to scare up sympathy with the old, "If they can do this to me they can do it to anybody" nonsense is just pathetic. I think most other people would have had the sense to make one call to the immigration office at some point in their life to check on the rules.

I really don't want Mrs Meyer to be deported because she clearly didn't violate the intent of the law. And I wouldn't mind having her as a neighbor because she is probably a very nice lady. However, I do hope the people of LA are sharp enough to realize that if someone can't manage something so simple in their personal life, they have no business managing a city.

Don't Believe the Hype

The great myth of science is that it settles disputes by revealing the facts about our world. The reality of science is that it is just another player in the world of opinion shaping. A world where opinions are standards that rally followers. And just another interest group lined up for government handouts. We hear calls from the cult of science that demand embryonic stem cell research saying it is THE cure for so many of our afflictions. Of course it is, just like Marlboro is THE smoke for any manly man. If you disagree with the Marlboro Man you're a wuss; if you disagree with the embryonic stem cell crowd, you're religious kook. This is the marketing of opinion, not the revelation of science.

The reality is that adult stem cell research has been yielding fruit for over a decade while embryonic stem cell research has yet to lead to a single successful therapy. Is this sufficient reason to defund all embryonic stem cell research? Of course not. But it absolutely should make you wonder why we hear so little about adult stem cell successes and so much about embryonic stem cell promises. Embryonic stem cell research is justifiably offensive to millions of Americans. Adult stem cell research is not. And seeing as there is no reason to believe that adult stem cells won't provide us all the benefits of embryonic cells that is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Bush provided a reasonable compromise. Scientists can continue to research on current lines, but more subjects will not be provided. However, the already successful road of adult stem cells is wide open. The controversial is allowed but restricted, the reasonable is encouraged if not promoted. Well done.

Whatever it Takes

This post is admittedly a bit unfair. I'm going to make the argument that I don't care a whit if some of these pedophiles had their civil rights violated during this investigation. This will of course put UBlo in the position of having to appear to defend pedophiles to support his fairly unyielding civil rights positions (something that he clearly would not be doing). I assure you, that is not my intent. And I want to say up front that I do respect to a large degree Mr. Blo's position on these matters. However, when it comes to eliminating this type of evil from the world I will continue to argue that I don't care if rules have to be bent to speed up the process of shutting down this kind of horror. It is tragic that these types of people exist and would be even more tragic if we were unable to eliminate them in the shortest time possible because we had to cross every T and dot every I.

I know that the theoretical argument is that we can have it both ways. Our law enforcement can nail the bad guys and the innocent can be uncompromised. I don't believe that. I don't believe that because people are categorically far less than perfect and the systems they create suffer the same fate. Therefore, investigations of this type of evil will always be less than precise. The price of an innocent person having their email or internet footprint compromised to save one of these children even one more hour of this type of abuse is an absolute bargain. I am grateful for our rights in this amazingly wonderful country, but I also understand that there are things much more important than my rights and I'm willing to lay them down when the circumstances call for it.

It was a crazy day, I also bought an ab-blaster

North Carolina DA Mike Nifong says he, "maybe got carried away a little bit" discussing the case of three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a African American stripper.

Yes, maybe a touch carried away in torching the lives of three Duke students, their coach (resigned), and an entire sports program (suspended for the rest of the 2006 season).

Just reading some of Nifong's quotes for the Fox article in the last link.

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

And,

"I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."

Odd, with Mr Nifong's amazing gut, that all three students were cleared.

So now Mr Nifong may lose his lawyer license. Among the comments cited was this gem where he said "he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for 'a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl.'" That's at least somewhat ironic now, given all the media surrounding both the initial incident, and the current media all surrounding the fact that in Durham, a bunch of lacrosse players were incorrectly charged with raping a black girl by an out of control DA. Duke is now as much known for this incident as anything else. Congratulations Mr Nifong. Rarely have I ever witnessed such a complete failure in any endeavor. Just a loss across the board. Wow.

I really haven't been following any of this, but if the only thing Mr Nifong loses is his license to practice law...well that feels like a crime.

I know this will muddy the picture, but I have to point out that if any of these players were foreigners accused of anything having to do with terrorism, they would have not had the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to see the evidence against them (including the flawed DNA evidence), nor any type of jury by peers in front of a judge, and the rest of the tools and protections that freed these boys. The woman's accusation and Mr Nifong's gut would be more than enough to keep them locked up forever.

UPDATE: Nifong announced his surprise resignation today.

New Hydrapoll Released!

Don't be left out.

Are You a Kook?

So the war was illegal, but the occupation is legal? The UN security council extended the mandate for the US forces in Iraq as deranged anti-war types (including a healthy portion of the Democrat base) continue to chant slogans about illegal wars. I certainly understand that there are very good reasons to be opposed to Bush's decision to take out Saddam and liberate Iraq. However, as soon as you find yourself bemoaning the illegality of the invasion you have just crossed the line from well reasoned critic to indoctrinated fanatic. Let this serve as H-Blogs first self-test for the age old question, "Am I a kook?"

You see your Gypsy

In the "why can't I just just catch a break" category, W goes to Albania, gets treated like a rock star, get not one, not two, but three stamps issued in his honor, but somewhere in the adoring crowd of gypsies, tramps and thieves, a particularly guts person stole his watch. Why someone didn't say, "Hey Mr President, how 'bout you slip off that watch before you plunge into the crowd," is really the big mystery.

On the other hand, somewhere a new Gypsy King was crowned. If you stole the watch of the President of the United States, you have to move up the latter. Right? Plus, isn't that watch almost invaluable as a family asset? Can't you see for generations the watch displayed in a glass case above the fireplace, "Ahhhh, the watch that your great-great grandfather stole from the President of the United States. Someday that will be yours."

I don't know much about gypsies, for deeper analysis I turn to one Mr Stalin Malone. Now he knows gypsies. I still remember the day he successfully negotiated to buy a $5 t-shirt for $20 at the ruins of the Berlin Wall, and later gave a strange gypsy a pull of his Coke in the Czech Republic. Maybe this explains the unbreakable bond between W and Stalin, both are Gypsy Masters.

This story is sooo gay its the bomb

I'm reluctantly posting this because I'm 90% sure its some kind of hoax, but I love the imagery, so here goes.

Apparently the Pentagon asked for $7.5 million to create a Gay Bomb, and I'm not talking about "To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar." Some guy named Edward Hammond with Berkeley's Sunshine Project used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio and found a project to create this gay bomb and the Pentagon confirmed it. My guess is that "Gaydar" was too costly so we're stuck with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Anyway, the idea behind the bomb was to come up with chemicals that would not only turn you gay, but sexed up gay. So much so, that you would immediately stop fighting for you life in a war zone and start making out with your fellow soldiers and jump into the nearest foxhole.

Can you imagine the pitch? "OK, I got this idea see. Let's create a bomb, but a non lethal one. All we have to do is turn the enemy gay. Right? You with me? But just gay isn't enough. Gay people want to live. We need gay's who want to love, and love right now. See? So we'll bomb 'em with some kind of chemical, A "gay" chemical, like...like lavender. Lavender makes you gay right? Then we need to get them all hot. Let's see, maybe we can deliver the load with leather pants? No, too hard to get the size right. Well hell, we'll just include another chemical that gets 'em all worked up. I know, let's use sweat. Gays like sweat right? Hey, I'm sweatin' right now, get some of this off my head, hurry. So now we have the perfect bomb, lavender and my sweat. We just some money for a lavender field and a treadmill. $7.5 million should do it. Who's with me? Come on boys, let's get 'em."

I'm entering this for a "Creepy Idea of the Year" even though it occurred in 1994.

Con-Vick?

I know, I know, Michael Vick hasn't been convicted of anything (and you won't see me jumping on, I just couldn't resist the title, and I have dibs on "Con-Vick-ted" if he goes down). However, things are heating up for young Michael as the feds have taken up the investigation into his alleged role in running a dog fighting ring.

Quick aside for a rant. ESPN Page 2 writer Bill Simmons argues that every professional sports team should hire a VP of Common Sense to keep GM's from making boneheaded moves-an idea I love. I also think that every pro athlete should make a member of his "posse" the official Jimmy the Cricket-or JC. After Mr Vick's run in with Miami Airport Security, he should have immediately hired a JC. Then said JC could have told Mr Vick that when you're a pro quarterback with a $130 million contract, maybe, just maybe, you should let the whole illegal dog fighting ring runner gig go. I think all athletes could benefit from a JC, probably wouldn't even have to pay much for the service, and in any case, what the JC saves in fines and public humiliation would surely cover their salary.

Anyway, all this hullabaloo around Mr Vick allegedly running an illegal dog fighting ring led to him abruptly canceling his annual camp, a move that is sure to enhance his reputation with the fans (apparently he's going for the rare "killer of dogs and children's dreams" combo).

Also, the same article has some excepts from a letter that Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank sent to season ticket holders, more of the letter here. Anyway, anytime you have to send a letter that asks, after defending your star QB from public persecution, that

"In the meantime, we want you to realize there are many examples of our organization impacting our community in a very positive manner."

And you also have to point out

the many charitable functions in which Atlanta players participate, and points out that the Atlanta Falcons Youth Foundation has to date provided more than $10 million in grants to Georgia-based nonprofit organizations.

You know things have gone horribly wrong for your organization and that you're in the midst of a PR nightmare. Keep in mind, all of this comes after a very disappointing season where you unexpectedly missed the playoffs and had to fire your head coach.

Again, I have no idea if he's guilty of anything other than really poor judgment in friends and hangouts, but things are going very badly for him right now. At a minimum, how can he concentrate on his job with a federal investigation hanging over him, and knowing that anyone who defends him will wind up like Washington Redskins RB Clinton Portis. And he needs to concentrate after last years set-back season. As of now, Vick's all alone and under the blade.

For those of you who care deeply about the topic of dog fighting, here's a link to the Humane Society's campaign against Amazon.com. Apparently Amazon.com sells dogfighting videos and Cock Fighting magazines.

Polls and market speak, W's value is dowwwwn.

The latest AP poll shows W again at his all time low with a 32% approval, which is also in line with his Hydrablog number. This alone isn't big or breaking news. Breaking it down, he has a 70% number with Republicans, a 25% number with Independents, and an 8 (yes 8) with Democrats.

Polls may lie, but markets rarely do. Take a look at this article. It implies that W's value in the market has declined from $25,000 for a photo to $5,000 in New Jersey. As a side note, I would love to see some real tracking on the value of photo ops with politicians and how much of an indicator that price is as for popularity and/or predictive of winning.

Combined, my bet is that you will see the current crop of GOP hopefuls start to really distance themselves, and eventually turn outright on W. While a 70 number is high in the GOP, you can't win with 25 and 8 for the other groups. A candidate needs Independents and Democrats to win, even if that means sacrificing some of the 70. You got a hint of this during the last GOP debate. My bet is that the candidates are crunching the data to see how their various methods of distancing themselves, and taking tentative jabs at W went. If it's not killing them, they will keep ramping up efforts on distance and jabs until its full out. The goal will be to trade one person from the 70 for three or more from the Independents and Democrats.

Bottom line...W's hurting. He's like wounded piranha, and the rest of the GOP piranha school is poised to devour him.

Immigration Idea

Much like Muscles For Justice in Drives Ed, the Immigration Bill failed. Not much to add, only that I continue to be surprised by how quickly this issue became a hot button and how emotional it is. As always, I think that the "immigration crisis" is a created phenomenon.

However, looking at it, I do have one question. Why is the ability to work tied to citizenship? Seems like we can have a guest worker program (I'm for open borders on working, but I'll take this as a step) that has nothing to do with citizenship. This way the US can have the benefit of cheap labor that expands the market of available goods and services or all Americans and the benefit of taxing that labor (which in theory lessens the burden on all of us, but in reality just means more moolah for the feds to spend), while letting immigrants keep their original citizenship. This means less worry for us and allows a country like Mexico to actually grow its middle class and strengthen its own economy. I know that the argument is that all foreigners want citizenship, but I'm not sure that's the case. I think they want citizenship so they can have access to jobs. If you could travel freely across the border, you could live well in Mexico and work in the US, and I bet most would choose something like that. I could be wrong, but bifurcating the two will prove it.

The GOP should accept this idea as it helps business but doesn't add to the Democratic Party's voter rolls. Loosening the worker restrictions would also allow the government to keep better track of immigrants and immigrants are incentivised to take this legal route over the illegal one. There is not threat of "Amnesty" because this has nothing to do with legalization. And just for kicks, the GOP could still rally around blowing billions on a wall to keep out those workers without permission to work here (and now use some of the new tax revenue to build said boondoggle).

Sometimes deconstructing thing makes them more plausible. We don't always need 15 volume laws that try to accomplish everything to everyone. Simpler is better.

Pardon me?

Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has received his sentence, 30 months (plus a quick primer on sentencing guidelines), all the talk is about will he/won't he be pardoned. I will admit here that the actual crime and sentencing acts are waaaay out of my area of expertise. Maybe it was huge, maybe it was minor, maybe 30 months is excessive, maybe its too light. No idea. Also, I understand that the Presidents powers of Pardation (my word) are unlimited, but as this article points out, there are "guidelines" (by way of note, anytime you see guidelines in quotes, the quotes mean "these marks render the world guidelines totally meaningless. Do what you want, and have fun"). Anyway, here they are.

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

My take is that pardons are like national parks. Presidents name national parks and give out pardons at the last minutes as "gifts" to the nation, to establish legacy, and to pay back debts, so I don't get too worked up about them. But at my core, I like parks, don't like the power of the pardon.

In any case, I do feel that government officials should be exempt from pardation (I'm going to keep using the word in hopes that it becomes part of the national dialog). It creates a scenario where someone could lie under oath, or commit some other crime at the behest of the President, with the President saying, "Don't worry, I'll pardon you." And, even if that is not the case, it could be inferred, or perhaps worse, look that way to the public, killing the public trust. Such a powerful tool and incentive creates both too tempting an option and too dangerous a perception.
I also understand that this "solution" could also create a scenario where Congress uses its legal powers to harass the Executive branch, and that pardation keeps that potential at bay. That's really the only real use for Pardons. Kind of like diplomatic immunity.

What I do find interesting are the Republican answers to the "Would you pardon Libby" question. The next generation of GOP hopefuls seem to continue the trend of an all powerful White House. Keep in mind, all of this comes before the outcome of any Libby appeal.

Mitt Romney: Tries, as usual to have it both ways.

noting that during his four years as governor, he didn't pardon anybody "because I didn't want to overturn a jury."But, he said a pardon for Libby would be "worth looking at"because the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, "clearly abused prosecutorial discretion" by going after Libby when Fitzgerald knew he was not the original source of the leak.

This is a great quote because, one, as I said it is classic Mit "Both Ways" Romney. Two, it shows that Mr Romney believes that he has a better grasp of the case than the Judge and Jury. Thus, he feels he may need to sweep in and correct this terrible wrong. Unilaterally, and uniquely correcting a wrong will be the typical answer from the others.

Rudy Guilani: At least Mr Guiliani says he will wait for the appeals process to work, but then renders it meaningless by announcing that he feels the sentence was

"way out of line." Adding, "I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment."

See, if the Court of Appeals finds his way then the ruling will stand, if they find in a way that displeases him, he will overturn it. Love that respect for Checks and Balances. Also, does this mean that Mr Giuliani will personally review all court cases and determine if the punishment was "excessive?"

John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter: Dodged it, but left open the "Rudy Out" of waiting to see what the appeals process brings. Why does it matter?

Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore: No pardon for Mr Libby. But these guys have about as much chance of winning as I do.

Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo: It's Pardon Time! Whoo Hoo! Uh, oh, according to polls these guys are on the Paul/Gilmore boat to "waitingtodropoutville."

Why is it that not one potential winner said, "This man was charged and tried before of jury of his peers. He had the ability to find top notch defense, made said defense and was found guilty. He was then sentenced. I believe the sentence was too harsh, and will work with Congress to rationalize the sentencing of all Americans facing Mr Libby's crimes. But the pardation of one man will not change what allowed this excessive punishment to occur." None of the frontrunners showed any respect for Checks and Balances, and from reading the transcript, all seemed to go right for the unilateral and unchecked power of whim.

All I'm saying is that I find this very interesting.

Yet Another Reason Why Tom Brady Is Not That Bright

So you think Tom Brady is a genius in the mold of Steve Young? If the last two playoff games of '06 weren't enough to change your tune (he won one of them, but didn't deserve to), then how about this. There is a reason why super models aren't allowed to teach college courses. There is also a reason why they aren't allowed to be spokespeople for substantive causes. "Today, no one is a virgin when they get married" as a public statement will help you understand why. Clearly, Gisele isn't going to be putting together any complicated puzzles in the near future (she may need a little help opening her Happy Meals as well). So who signs up for endless evenings of conversation with her? Stephen Hawking? No. Tom Brady. There may be a few reasons to put Gisele in your five, but stimulating intellectual conversation ain't one of 'em. The evidence just keeps mounting against simple Tom.

But Eliot Spitzer says its right

Democratic NY Governor Eliot Spitzer signed into law a bill that effectively legalizes ticket scalping by removing the limit to how much above face value brokers can charge. The free market rejoices!

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world indeed.

Bush says market is wrong

A small meat packer is looking to test all of its meat for Mad Cow disease. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows and then advertise their meat as "safe." Great idea. The market, both domestic and foreign is concerned with Mad Cow disease (or at least Creekstone feels that it is), and Creekstone is going to use the same test that feds use (only the feds test about 1% of all meat).

This is great. Everyone complains about lousy FDA standards and testing, and here a private company is stepping up to provide the service. In essence, the private sector wants to take on a government service. Awesome. They take the risk, if they cannot pass on the cost, or are wrong about the markets desire for this information, they take the hit, if they're right, they get the reward (but probably short lived. If Creekstone is right, other companies would quickly follow, but again, that's on Creekstone). Plus, they're heavily incentivised to do it right. Announcing this program, then doing it wrong would kill the business.

What's not great?

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

Why?

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

To which I say...huh? It's the same test the FDA uses. Clearly, Creekstone has no interest in doing anything to harm the industry...its their industry. Plus, if Creekstone has a false positive, the damage directly and powerfully harms them. They have the highest interest in making sure the test is done correctly, a Creekstone false positive hammers them.

Why is W so opposed to letting the market work this out? It takes the pressure off of the FDA, if the model works, this could potentially save the taxpayers money or allow the FDA to shift resources to other areas. Its an easy "yes" to anyone who truly supports a free market and small government. I don't want to be cynical, but the only reason I can come up with for W's hex is that the,

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

My bet is that they make loads of contributions too. But that's just me.