Is a Change a Comin'?

I'm not sure anyone should be ready to call Al-Jazeera an ally in the war on terror just yet. But is it possible that time is now on our side? Bin Laden is clearly frustrated with the inability of his holy warriors to drive out the crusaders. Bush's stubbornness has apparently gotten under his craw. And now Al-Jazeera has realized it's good press to report on the dissension in the ranks of terrorism. So the west can no longer pretend that the Iraqi resistance is unified and unyielding and conclude that Bush should just give up and go home.

What our generation (and our parent's) has not had to learn is that war is a long, brutal process. And the winner doesn't have to execute the best or strategize the best. Often the winner just has to wait for the other guy to blink. Now the Left started blinking about the time the dust from the Twin Towers got in their eyes, but thankfully, they aren't America. America, has been considering blinking for several years now but hasn't. And that is almost solely to the credit of President Bush who hasn't allowed it. In that time, there has been no sign that the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere were even considering blinking. But now, with Al Jazeera willing to report that there may be disunity in the great struggle against the occupiers one can't help but wonder if this isn't the beginning. Shouldn't it be obvious to everyone that the longer the insurgents see that their tactics are failing the more frustrated and disheartened they will become? Perhaps common sense isn't so common.

Swing and a Miss

No wonder congress is home to the only politicians less liked than President Bush. (34.3% approval for Bush, 23.5% approval for Congress) The Democratic Senators who tried to make hay out of comments made by Rush Limbaugh played themselves right into his hands. The "controversial" talk jock (do I sound mainstream now?) who, if anything, practically worships the military was accused of "calling into question" the service of our troops in Iraq. How so? By using the term "phony soldiers". Of course, in context this term referred to soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who have lied about what they did in Iraq to gain notoriety and feed the anti-war crowd's need for proof that they are right. I'm sure Dan Rather will soon speak out in defense of Mr. Macbeth since even though his "facts" are lies his "position" is correct. But I digress...so the Democrats try to outmaneuver the biggest American military/Iraq war cheerleader by saying he doesn't respect our troops in harms way. As Confucius says, "What is the sound of wood hitting nothing?" (he didn't actually SAY that, but it's in line with his positions. You got my back, Dan?) And playing this utterly impotent attack off as a joke is absolutely the right move. Wow, this was like watching a Patriots v. Dolphins game...no contest.

Honey, I Shrunk the Condom

After years of tireless lobbying, UBlo has finally struck a blow for the little guy. Condom manufacturers have arrogantly been turning out their products with a minimum size of 6.3 inches. These "circus tents" as UBlo has long referred to them are not only an environmentally unfriendly waste of latex, but they are an anachronistic nod to the phallocentric man worship of the dark ages. "Let's get real!," has been the cry of UBlo and his Japanese supporters for years now. When asked if he was at all reticent about being the face of this movement UBlo replied, "I'm not ashamed to order a small Pepsi so why should I be ashamed to ask for a small condom?" Look for the new custom fit condoms at a mall kiosk near you.

Death To Democracy

Lethal injection is cruel and unusual because it can cause "excruciating pain". Well, having a baby DOES cause excruciating pain...when is someone going to ban that?

The reality here is that all capital punishment is cruel and unusual to those who oppose it. They see the cruel and unusual protection as the poison pill that can kill a policy that is supported by the people. So the definition only needs to get so broad that all capital punishment fits inside and then, just like that, the people will have been beaten by semantics. It sure beats having to change people's minds in a free democracy. Who has time for that?

There's another way to stick it to the rabble. You can have your local professional group force its members to boycott a legal and democratically approved execution. The argument here (if you can believe the story...it is from CBS) being doctors shouldn't kill patients...unless they ask for it...or their mother's do. More meds for me please...I can still see the truth.

Kill the Messengers or The Mouse That Didn't Roar

Let me tell you why this country, despite lilting significantly in their direction, will not get behind the Democrat's plan to cut and run from Iraq...their spokesmen. War fatigue is a fact of democracy. It is inevitable. America has it. Therefore, there is no easier position than the one staked out by the Democrats. And still they can't muster enough support to accomplish anything on that issue. And all you need to do is listen to the somnolent droning of Jack Reed or the shrill whining of Nancy Pelosi or the prissy preaching of John Kerry to understand why. It is so pathetic that the Democrat leadership thinks just because Jack Reed has some kind of military background (bugle player?) his wimpish delivery of liberal tough talk will resonate with people who want to be kept safe from terror. It won't. The only reason Hillary has a chance to be Pres is because she IS the ice queen...and she seems tough. When nothing is going on you can sell us a non-threatening dough boy like Billy Clinton, but when there's murder afoot it's going to take more than jittery Jack Reed to win over this country. Tonight the Democrat rebuttle didn't and now you know why.

Black Hacks

It might be argued that it would be unfair to paint the entire NAACP with the same brush used to blot out the idiots seen to the left. However, they are part of the NAACP and are speaking on behalf of that organization. So what do they have to tell us? Well, that much like OJ, Michael Vick is being unfairly treated. In fact, we shouldn't conclude from Vick's admission of guilt that he is actually guilty. And, after he's sent to prison for this I'm-not-really-guilty-guilty plea he should be treated as if it never happened when he gets out. Give him back his job. Give him back his status in society. Give a brothah a break!

I'm not sure if there is any greater indicator that your organization no longer has any value than when it is reduced to defending humiliated ex-sports heroes. Wouldn't it be great if Mr. Vick could accomplish two august goals with his martyrdom: the end of hero worship for debauched men who can run fast and jump high and the end of the NAACP as the spokesmen for a group of people far better than they.

Gambling and "the Market"

Big controversy in the NBA as one of their refs, Tim Donaghy is accused of fixing games, and no that doesn't mean helping to bring back the mid-range jumper. He's accused of working with Mafia types to skew the the points scored in games, specifically effecting the over/under line.

But what I find more interesting is that he was able to pull this off. According to ESPN,

research into Donaghy's last two seasons supports Bell's claims. In the 66 games Donaghy refereed in the 2005-06 season, the two teams in his games combined to score an average of 196.8 points. The average over/under, according to BoDog.com, was 186.6, a difference of almost 10 points.

In 2006-07, Donaghy refereed 73 games. In those contests, the two teams combined to score 201.37 points and the average over/under was 187.9 points, a difference of more than 13 points per game.

"Vegas is too good for that to happen," Bell said. "The standard range should be somewhere around five or six, maybe. Not 10 or 13."

Mr Bell is right, Vegas is too good for that. But what's more interesting is that Vegas was not too good to price this information into the spreads of games worked by Mr Donaghy. After all, the spreads are public, and are viewable by millions of people, not just gamblers. So are the referee schedules. Again, from the article,

At the start of the 2007 calendar year, Bell said, there were 10 straight games in which Donaghy was part of the officiating crew and the point spread moved a point and a half or more before tip-off, indicating big money had been wagered on the game. In those 10 contests, according to Bell, the big money won all 10 times.

So, clearly, someone was getting the benefit, but not the whole market. The market failed to notice that for 10 straight games, and for two seasons, games refereed by Mr Donaghy hit the over by a large margin. With all information publicly available, millions of dollars wagered, and tens of millions of observers this free market should have bid up the over/under line to reflect the "Donaghy Effect." Markets are not supposed to leave "cash on the table" or unexploited profit opportunity. Yet the market missed this. Badly.

Why?

Because, despite what textbooks and Cliff Note versions of Adam Smith tell us, markets are not perfectly efficient. They do leave "cash on the table" and miss significant events and signals. This is not a dig on "the Market" rather a reality check. The Market is the best thing going, but its not perfect, not by a long way. Some folks treat it like it is and get confused when its not. Take the old joke about an old economist and a young economist walking down the sidewalk. The young economist says, "look, a $100 dollar bill on the ground" and goes to pick it up. The old economist stops him and says, "its not real, if it were, someone would have picked it up by now." If economic theory as commonly stated were right, the market should have recognized the number of overs hit when Donaghy refereed, I mean, it had two years to find this information. Even more telling, figuring out the "Donaghy Effect" did not require any inside information, or archaic math equations or intense skulduggery. It was decidedly straight forward.

This is why stock pickers can beat the market, this is why entrepreneurs can succeed, and why people make profits. Its not that the "The" Market is perfect, its that the market is flawed. It's the "Free" Market that allows people to succeed in "The" Market. Remember this next time someone tells you that things are "priced into the stock" or whatever. That, and sometimes simpler is better.

As for the NBA. Maybe it should fully embrace gambling. Rather than spend all that time and money to monitor players and refs, let the market of gamblers inform the NBA of what's expected. When reality deviates from what that market expects, points, fouls, wins, player stats, etc then that should signal that something may be up. Focus on what millions of participants, with money on the line, have calculated. It's a bigger and better model than anything created on the NBA's budget of time and money. Had the NBA done that, they would have noticed the "Donaghy Effect" long before an informant tipped off the FBI.

To come full circle markets work. You just have to understand what that means.

Shambling to a Blog Near You

Susie Madrak needs help. She's a blogger. Now keep in mind that blogging requires a chair and at least one finger. The rigors of blogging are akin to the rigors of sun bathing. And yet to Susie this is "very intense - physically and mentally." If you ever needed a window into the union mentality, there it is. That which appears to be easy is actually very hard and, in fact, too hard for any one person to do. It takes a village to have a hobby.

Collectivism is the Cult of Incompetence. It is founded on one principle - You Can't. It is absurd.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Look for the Union Label.

Noooo, see I'm not gay, I'm just a racist. That's cool right?

FL Assemblyman Robert "Bob" Allen (R-Merritt Island) was recently arrested for solicitation in a Titusville restroom. But, he wasn't there for any "man love," and certainly not there to pay for it, he was there because he was scared.

This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen, who is white, told police in a taped statement after his arrest. Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.

So there you have it folks, the first recored use of the "Let me free, I'm just a publicly elected racist" defense. You can read the officers description of the events and just what "say anything" means to Mr Allen in the same article. Just like Michael Vick, Mr Allen deserves his day in court, but just like my opinion on Mr Vick, I think Mr Allen is in trouble.

Just for kicks, you can also read Assemblyman Allen's recent legislation that would increase the penalty of such acts, make it easier to prosecute such acts, and increases the scope of such "lascivious" acts here. It died in Committee.

Hmmmm, maybe he was just doing "research."

The Wheels on the Bike Go Round and...ooooph

The New Jersey State Assembly recently passed bill A2686 which makes it illegal for bicycling stores to sell bikes with "quick release" skewers, the skewer is what binds the wheel to the bikes fork. While billed as a measure to protect the children, amendments added to the bill (for kicks, you can view the progress from a simple bill to a horribly convoluted bill by going to this link and checking out the versions, whoo hooo!) seem to read that all bikes are exempt. The problem is the 20" standard. In the first version, the standard was "intended for use by children." OK, that does seem to be purpose of the bill (more on that later). Then came, "with a wheel diameter of 20 inches or less." OK, now we're getting picky, but still, it's within the realm of the idea. Then came the mind numbing, "(a) the front wheel diameter is greater than 20 inches; or (b) it is a specialty adult bicycle with a front wheel diameter of 20 inches or less." while keeping the "20" or less" standard in the same document. So, it will be illegal to sell bikes with quick release skewers on bikes with a front wheel diameter of 20" or less, and bikes with a front wheel diameter of 20" or more. Now, I'm no math genius (that would be Mr. Malone's department), but that seems to cover pretty much all bikes (except, for some reason, adult specialty bikes with a front wheel diameter of less than 20", go figure). This is State Government at its finest. Simple bill, with a simple goal (patience, patience) that now takes it out of everyone with a very poorly written bill. There are 100's of thousands of bikes out there with qr's, I've ridden them for years, they serve many purposes and work great. While they can be a problem, so can any piece of equipment. A bolt can work loose, break, whatever.

But more interesting, and why this post is under the "Helen Lovejoy" tab is the the line that

"Children riding bicycles with quick release wheels have been involved in over 100 accident: Many of the children involved in these accidents have suffered injuries, including permanent scarring, disfigurement, major bone and dental trauma, severe scraping and bruising, brain injury, and ruptured internal organs;"

What it doesn't say is over what period that 100 happened and how many were of real consequence. Beyond being shoddy, its also dumb. I suggest banning roads, as I recall lots of road rash growing up riding my bike. I also recommend doing away with cars (easy to hit and get hit by), dogs, fences, other kids, rocks, sticks, ramps, girls (they induce boys to "show off"), bike chains, bike stems (any boy who's ever hit that knows exactly what I'm talking about), AND bolts (they come loose, I know this from actual experience, I suggest welding everything in place). I also suggest making all kids wear mouthpieces, gloves, steel toed boots, and knee and elbow pads. You know what, I think they should just ban "fun" and just make every parent wrap their kid in bubble wrap.

Finally, I liked this part.

[Multiple bicycle manufacturers have recalled their quick release mechanisms due to failure of the mechanism; and]²

The danger to children caused by bicycles with quick release wheels is unacceptable in light of the fact that safer alternatives exist ²; and

Furthermore, advances in quick release technology make it right and proper that the new mechanisms—which are less prone to assembler and user error—be used in place of the old².

It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper that the State regulate the sale of bicycles with quick release wheels to stem the rash of senseless injuries to children resulting from their use.

Sooo, the market worked with recalls and newer quick releases that work better. Yet Paul D. Moriarity, wants to ban them and regulate an obscure part of the bike market. It's elementary, Moriarity can't ride a bike and doesn't want anyone else to do so either. Because of Assemblyman Moriarity, the whole of NJ can't buy bikes with qr's increasing cost and hassle for everyone, all because over 100 problems of some sort have occurred over some undetermined amount of time.

Local Government, gotta love it.

I'm So Wasted

Jeff Spicoli met with Hugo Chavez in Caracas to discuss matters of state. At one point during the visit Spicoli picked up an emaciated street urchin and struck the side of his head, "That was my skull!" he shouted to the nervous looking revellers. Silent armed guards nearby seemed to enjoy the exchange, at least, that's what the local papers reported. Spicoli then offered that he couldn't think of any good reason why Mr. Hand would have a problem with a violent criminal running a country. "It must be because of oil," he concluded. The nervous crowd seemed to approve of this assessment or possibly they were just signalling their recognition of the word "oil". After the rally the Great Leader and his Bud retired to the palace to work on a diorama of Joseph Stalin.

Steve Horner's Revenge, or the ascent of Roy Den Hollander

Looks like renegade party pooper Steve Horner may get the last laugh after all. After calling "dibs" on the ideal that "Ladies Night" at bars crushes his civil rights, a gaggle of "me too's" are popping up nation wide. Seeking to one up Mr Horner, who merely sued for the rights of all Colorado males, one Mr Roy Den Hollander feels that he needs to lead the charge for all American males and is taking his case to the Federal Court. He's a modern day Martin Luther King Jr. I'm sure that one day there will be schools, streets and holiday's in RDH's honor.

Says RDH, "I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen." I suppose, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their chest hair but by the amount of liquor they can drink for half price." would have been a bit much.

Seriously, shouldn't having your rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen for something that 150 million American share, a hoo-hoo, affect more outrage than just one jack-ass? I honestly feel more like a second-class citizen because RDH is somehow my representative than his silly lawsuit. Can I sue him in Federal Court for making me and my whazzit look ridiculous (just to beat the wife to the punch, yes, I know I do a good enough job on my own)?

Another "man" who doesn't understand economics, George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, says this is just the tip of the oppression iceberg. Seems Mr Banzhaf thinks the conspiracy of free choice spending extends to dry cleaners and hair-cuts. Just to help Mr Banzhaf out, no way no how will I spend what my wife spends on a hair-cut. I'm also in and out in 30 minutes, and have had the same basic hair cut since I retired my mullet in 1992. So a smart business owner maximizes what someone will pay, ladies will, and do, pay more, men, won't pay more, so they pay less. As far as clothes, I don't own nearly as many "dry clean only" clothes as my wife because I'm too lazy and don't care enough about them anyway. My local dry-cleaner would go broke waiting for me to bring my clothes in. His only chance is keep the prices down. In fact, I'm much more apt to by-pass a product that says "dry clean only" than to buy one. The clothing manufacturers know this too, and design around "dry clean only" products. There's nothing at all nefarious about any of these practices. In fact, if women wanted, they could easily band together and boycott until prices came down.

Bottom line? If ladies night was truly an oppressive, civil rights destroying, male bashing, submissive practice, guys wouldn't line up and frequent the bars that hold these events. The bar would suffer, and the bar owner would change the practice. Being a guy (I'm a life long member of the club), I'm fairly plugged into what bugs guys. Ladies night, I assure you, is not on the list. What does bug guys is little squirrelly cynics ruining a good thing and making us all look like idiots.

A True Cheating Zero Policy

Lots of talk over the last few days about cheating. Tour de France leader Michael Rasmussen was just kicked out of the race, SI.com writer Michael Bamberger just posted a piece on the subject. Everyone laments "what to do?"

Long time fans of the H-Blog (Hi Ma) know that this is the place to come to for solutions. And today I present the solution for cheating. Get ready.

It's very simple. If you're caught cheating (using banned substances, corked bats, scuffed balls, whatever) you are not merely penalized or suspended, your career statistics are erased and you start from zero. No one wants to waste time wondering when you started cheating, or how often, so you just start over. Get busted for steroids and your career sack total now reads "0." Use a corked bat, your career home runs and hits..."0." You get the drift.

The reward for cheating, increased stats, increased salary, increased endorsements, records, all outweigh the penalty of getting caught. So the incentive is clearly to cheat. If Sammy Sosa, or Barry Bonds know that all their stats will go to zero if they are caught cheating, then the incentive clearly shifts to, "Not worth it." Which is where it should be.

You could even run a cheesy ad campaign "Cheating makes you a zero." I picture it as a GI Joe bit, with Scarlett and Gung Ho saying it to a group of kids, then adding "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. GI Joeeeeeeee" This is why I'm here.

License Re-Vicked

The court of public opinion has officially condemned Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick. Under Federal Indictment for running a dog fighting ring, Mr Vick is now dealing with that accusation (and as of now, that's all it is).

Nike decided not to release the latest version of Mr Vick's shoe.

PETA and the HSPCA are on him like an angry linebacker. From Dan Shannon, an assistant director of campaigns for PETA. "We don't think their 'wait and see' attitude goes far enough." I assume by "wait and see" they mean "wait and see" if he's actually found guilty of the crimes he's accused of committing. But, honestly, I get Mr Shannon's emotion. I totally disagree with his request, but it's not at all surprising that he wants to destroy a man before he's been found guilty. However, when a US Senator jumps on the "guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon I get a little more chilled. Says Sen John Kerry (D-MA)

On behalf of millions of sports fans and dog lovers, I urge you to treat Mr. Vick's dogfighting indictment with the very serious attention it deserves and suspend him from the league until the resolution of legal proceedings.

But wouldn't suspending him before he's found guilty just mean that the allegation is equivalent to guilt? I get that "innocent until proven guilty" is not explicitly stated in the USC, but the principle is about as American as any principle gets. For Mr Kerry to jump ahead of due process, which is spelled out, and urge the suspension of Mr Vick before the trial even begins is a tad alarming. Using Mr Kerry's logic, any accusation should result in penalty. Not sure I can endorse that. (Quick aside, Mr Kerry repeatedly condemned Mr Bush's handling of Guantanamo Bay -rightly so- but is OK with punishing Mr Vick based on nothing more than accusations. Not the same, certainly, but very similar.)

Finally, the NFL acted. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "temporarily" suspended Mr Vick, telling him to stay away from training camp. Yes, Mr Vick will still get his pay, but is that the point? He will lose training time with his teammates, the suspension will certainly give the air of guilt to those same teammates, and the combined effect of both of those actions will certainly affect his on field performance (assuming an actual suspension isn't in the works). That will cost him, and that cost is potentially huge (if he loses his contract that alone is $130 mil, add in the fact that his endorsement value decreases if he's not on the field, and it ramps up from there). Of all the third parties involved, I feel most for Mr Goodell. It's an almost impossible situation. Allow Mr Vick to continue as if nothing happened and your fans go nuts, hurting the image and revenue of the league (his primary responsibility). Suspend Mr Vick and you set yourself up for having to answer why any player accused of any misdeed isn't similarly treated. Keep in mind, the NFL is a league where drug and sexual abuse allegations occur yearly. The next time a player is accused of sexual abuse, Mr Goodell will find himself having to explain why dogs get more attention than women. At least if he sticks to the "due process" clause, he avoids that. Furthermore, I believe, most American's will eventually understand and respect that path. Over the short term its easier to suspend Mr Vick, but its wrong, and will open up a whole new can of worms. (When I say "wrong" I mean it in the civic sense. I know that the NFL has the clauses built into all contracts to make the move. It's contractually correct, but civicly suspect.)

Just so PETA stays off my back. I have two dogs, and the idea of dog fighting makes me ill. If Mr Vick is found guilty (and for the record, that's my bet), he will find no defender here. My point is that due process is not on a sliding scale of heinousness of accused crime. It's not, "speeding ticket = due process" and "dog fighting = destruction of reputation and earning power." At some point, as a nation, we need to decide if American core principles are indeed core principles. If they are, then someone accused of dog fighting, or terrorism, should have the same rights as someone accused of shoplifting or fraud.

I say let Mr Vick play until he's found guilty. Then drop the hammer.

Farm Aid?

Lot's of talk about reforming the Department of Agriculture's practice of giving farmers cash for loads of reasons.

The House (or Da Hey-Ouuuuse for the cool kids) is set to debate a bill that would stop subsidies for farmers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income. Not huge, and largely cosmetic, but it is something. However it does bring up the idea that maybe, just maybe, all subsidies should cap out at companies making more than $1 million in agi.

Also, turns out the Department of Agriculture paid out over $1.1 billion to dead farmers. Wow. the aptly acronymed DOA relies on the kindness of others to report when someone dies and payments should stop. My favorite is that the DOA not only defends this practice of trusting people to say "Hey, quit sending me free money" but actually has the gall to then say, "that any overpayments would amount to less than 1 percent of farm subsidies paid between 1999 and 2005." This tells you two things. One, the DOA pays out way too much money. Two, and more importantly, some bureaucrat feels that $1.1 billion just isn't a lot of money. $1.1 billion is "oh well, what can you do?" I feel like just uttering those words is a fireable offense.

And this leads me to today's rant. The problem with government is that people are spending other peoples money. Lots of it, with no repercussions or context. Its always, always easier to spend a lot of someone else's money. The same folks that cut out coupons (always a smart move) are the same folks that feel like any random spending project is OK. The good news for all the H-Blog's readers (Hi Ma) is that I don't just come with rants, I come with solutions. My humble solution is to tie government pay to spending. Waste 1% of your budget, you lose 1% of your pay. Go over budget by 10%, you give 10% of your pay as the first "loan" in to cover it. If wasting 1% of my money isn't a big deal, you can certainly give up 1% of yours. If something is so important that you need to blow the budget by 10% certainly it must be important enough for you, the decider, to put up 10% too.

Now to come out of the rant. The DOA already pays out subsidies to dead farmers for two years so the family has time to get its affairs in order. Nice sentiment, but why does that only apply to farmers? Why can't every estate get money from the feds when there's a death in the family? Shouldn't the estate of an owner of a restaurant get two years of free money to get things in order? Look, I have to admit that I have a soft spot farmers. I think a nation needs to be able to feed itself, I look at it as a matter of national security. But some of these provisions are just too much. I'd probably be cool with some kind of federally backed insurance pool.

The Anti-War Dirty Little Secret

As the article shows, the war in Iraq continues to be a war against Al Qaida. Granted, there is more going on than just that. But, sadly, too many critics are being allowed to assert the false claim that the Iraqi insurgency is just a manifestation of a civil war. It is not, it is a regional war and one that has real consequences for the west (that means you and me). If Iraq cannot be stabilized it will become a staging ground for attacks against the west. The same is true for Afghanistan. The same is also true for Syria and Iran. Like it or not, the reality is that Islamic terrorists will continue to kill us non-Islamic terrorists by launching attacks from ungoverned areas and sympathetic regimes. Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel, as is Syria. Al Qaida is funding terrorism in Iraq, Europe and the U.S. All of them have resources exposed in Iraq. Iraq is the place we should be destroying those resources. I will continue to appeal to those who want to see the U.S. abandon Iraq. How else do you propose we strike at the threat that is Islamic terrorism? Or do we not strike? Do we just attempt to build a fortress that cannot be penetrated? What cost offense and what cost defense? There is no cheap solution.

Put Up or Shut Up

The anti-war crowd is thrilled to see more Republicans joining the Bring 'Em Home chorus. Apparently, ending the war is more important than protecting Americans. I make this inflammatory statement because I don't know what the anti-war crowd's solution is to our terrorism problem. I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are good reasons to be opposed to the Iraq war. However, if you don't prop up those reasons with a plan to keep Americans safe after we withdraw from the battlefield, those reasons are irrelevant.

If you claim to be a leader and you can't offer up a solid plan for keeping Americans safe in their homes, on their planes or in their offices then please step aside and let your betters lead. Empty criticism can serve a purpose as it forces all the weaknesses of a choice to be considered. However, that choice should never be abandoned until a clearly superior choice has been identified. This is not a partisan issue, this is life and death. Those abandoning their positions for no reason other than the lack of public support should be ashamed of themselves. Those abandoning because they have found a better solution had best speak up.

Take the new Hydrapoll!

Hey, look over there ---->

McCain cirlces the drain

The information in this post should not be new to any long time reader of the H-Blog (Hi Ma). But for the rookies, it looks like John McCain is real trouble after raising just $11.2 million in the second quarter (H-Blog called him "Dead Man Walking" in February). Yes $11.2 million is a lot of jack, but not when it puts you third in fund raising. See, its all about perspective and the perspective is all bad for McCain right now. Ron Paul would be thrilled with $11.2 million as it would signal upward momentum, but for Mr McCain, $11.2 is a big signal of downward mo'. Also, everyone likes to back a winner, and the perception that you're stallin' and fallin' only makes it harder to raise money. Mr McCain is on the edge of the dreaded downward spiral, where things are going bad, and things going bad only makes more bad things happen. Disappointing fund raising ($24.8 million so far on a $100 mil year end goal) and layoffs are a huge signal that bad things are happening (the bad event). Now, who's going to rush in and support that camp (the more bad things event)?

So the question is why? And that dear readers is why you come to the Hblog. Yahoo and CNN blame the two I's Iraq and Immigration, where McCain finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion on both issues. "Wrong" on Iraq with the general population, where Mr McCain used to be the belle of the ball, and "wrong" on Immigration within the GOP where Mr McCain plays Carrie.

But that's not really the issue. CNN Political Editor Mark Preston gets closest,

"He's going back to what he did in 2000. He realizes that the way he is going to win this nomination is not by getting the establishment votes but rather a grassroots campaign."

And there you have it. Mr McCain sold out. Sold out big, and sold out early. The cult of his particularly personality was built on "Maverick Senator John McCain." But immediately after he withdrew from the 2000 election he went from the voice of the people and supposed King Maker, to chief lap dog for the guy who blew him up. It killed him with his public. The man that fell victim to push polling suggesting he had a black baby, kissed the feet of the man who ordered the poll. Nothing maverick or heroic about it. A man who had the reputation of being a "man of principle" sold that principle to win. And that's just not his gig.

Two types of people win elections. People who will live and die by their conviction (W) and people with no conviction (Clinton). People will respect the first for their principles, and respect the second for their effectiveness (if they ever even notice it). But if your gig is that of conviction and you publicly sell out, well, it makes people gag. Its the worst of both. And that's John McCain. And Mr McCain's biggest "gag" moment was selling out on the Torture bill. It was a sad, sad moment. It was also when he lost this election. Everyone kept waiting for him to rise and champion something that should be so close to his heart. But everyone forgot that he sold his heart in 2000. Once his supporters, and his opponents realized this, he was done. Mr McCain was publicly played, and no one, not one single American, can vote for someone who was so badly manipulated in public.

So when Mr McCain says that he tried the maverick route last time and he lost, so this time he's going to court the right and suck up to his old opponents, it tells you a lot about the man and why he's destined to lose again.

For the record, I do believe that if he stayed with his Straight Talk Express persona (and that's clearly what it was), and repeatedly challenged the White House, then he would be the front runner. Now, not only will he badly lose the primary, but he cannot fall back to the "I'll run as an Independent" line. In 2000 he alienated the GOP core chiefmakers but won the hearts of the independents, some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. Feeling stung (aka panic), he spent the next eight years alienating all those R's, I's and D's. And what's that spell? RID, and that's exactly what the public is doing. They're getting RID of McCain (No? Too cute?).

So now its about layoffs and falling well short of his fund raising goals. Next it will be about falling well short of the White House (Was that better?).

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.