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.

Go-Going

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

I'll do what I can.

Small but important...

Just like Alan Greenspan!

The former Brainiac in Chief noted that

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

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

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

Minutemen and the fence

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

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

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

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

New Poll, 20-25% of Amercians are morons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost Famous...

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

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

Bake me a cake as fast as you can

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMAHA 911!

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

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

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

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

All hail the new king!

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

Speaking of internet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's almost two years in dog time!

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

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

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

The great dem chicken count

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



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



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



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

Read my lips, "No new tests!"

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

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

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

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

The new messiah

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

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

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

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

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

No Shiite, He's a Sunni?

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

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

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

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

In wrap-up, Rep. Everett says,

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

Welcome to the show.

You know six of one...

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

From the Think Progress 10/17

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

From The Daily Telegraph 10/18

Iraq a helluva mess: Baker

Things sure can change in hurry.

Foley follow-up

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

Two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats just don't understand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox commits an error

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh God, just saying it scares me.

What is up in CT?

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

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

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

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

And he is.

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

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

Going from a September 28 Senate floor speech,

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

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

To a October 11 meeting where she said,

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

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

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

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

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

Count me out.