Gotta love the AP!

David Espo over at the Associated Press recounts a list of recent Republican scandals but conveniently leaves off any Democratic scandals, suggesting this is an area where Democrats should reap some sort of political reward. I've decided to help him out and point out a few recent scandals involving Democrats:

Geoffrey Fieger is currently under indictment for campaign finance violations.

Norman Hsu is being investigated for similar violations.

William Jefferson is still under investigation regarding the mysterious package the FBI found in his freezer: $90,000.

GOP Reeling From Money and Sex Scandals
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - When it comes to scandal, Democrats could be forgiven for thinking they hit the political jackpot this summer. At Republican expense.

First came the disclosure that Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's telephone number was listed in the records of an escort service.

Then Sen. Ted Stevens' home in Alaska was raided by federal agents as part of a corruption investigation.

Now Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is recanting a guilty plea that grew out of a police undercover operation in an airport men's room, adding, "I am not gay" for emphasis.

"This is a serious matter," said the Senate Republican leadership, an understatement for the ages.

Hey, Ben Smith, there's another similarity

Over at the Politico, Ben Smith is taking issue with John Fund bringing up the 1996 Clinton scandal involving illegal, foreign (specifically Chinese) campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign. His concern: "The only connection I can see here is his ethnic origin," pointing out that Norman Hsu, accused of giving illegal campaign funds to Hillary Clinton, is of Chinese descent.

Hey, Ben, here's something else that's a connection, although it might be hard to notice: both scandals involved the Clintons. Perhaps if the 1996 scandal shouldn't be brought up, Ben would suggest another Clinton finance scandal we should look at instead?

RNC pushing the China angle
The Politico

So is the Hsu story more sinister because Norman Hsu, the controversial donor, is Chinese-American, born in Hong Kong?

None of the Clinton's Democratic rivals have suggested that, and none of the papers covering it have even hinted at it.

But the Republican National Committee has been pushing this angle pretty hard, and apparently attempting to revive the - never proven - allegations of a Chinese "spy ring" buying its way into the 1996 Clinton campaign.

As far as I can tell, the only link here is that Hsu is Chinese American.

This is price gouging

A few months ago, I was in Orlando on business and went to fuel up the rental car at the gas station closest to the airport. I hopped out, walked over to the pump, grabbed the nozzle, and then looked at the price. $4.15. I didn't realize what I saw; I had assumed it was a rather high $3.15 (at the time, most gas stations in the area were around $2.85, but I expect to pay a little more near the airport). I did a double-take, realized what it was, then left the station, went up the street a half mile, and paid $2.90.

A local station down in Orlando has caught on and has done a story on this station which is linked here.

One item of note - in addition to being ridiculously overpriced, this was the only station I saw in the Orlando area which did not have its prices prominently displayed. Most gas stations have giant price signs out front; this one did not. It's clear the guy who runs this station is trying to trick people into paying ridiculous rates for gas and is taking advantage of the location of his station, which is also near several car rental returns. It's reprehensible.

Motorists Furious Over $4.50 Gas Near Orlando International Airport
Local 6 Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla - Some outraged motorists have scrawled warning messages and curse words on gas pumps after paying up to $4.50 for a gallon for gasoline at a station near Orlando International Airport.

Residents and tourists say they were shocked to see the gas prices at the Landing Strip gas station located on Semoran Boulevard, just north of the airport.

"I didn't even look until I pulled up and I went, 'Holy cow,'" driver Julie Milser said.

There are no signs advertising the high prices at the station.

"So, what do you think about (the high prices)?" WKMG reporter Tony Pipitone asked.

"We're leaving is what we think about it," a motorist said.

Quote of the Day

"Doing too little is obvious, but let's say it anyway. If you don't do something about global warming, of course it will become a bigger problem. So obviously we need to address it and in the long term fix it. On the other hand, doing too much about it means we are focusing too much effort on climate change and forgetting all the other things we have a responsibility to deal with, like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and malnutrition. If we spend too much time and resources focusing on climate change, then we do the future a disservice because we say, 'Hey, we fixed climate change but we let all the other things slide.'"

- Bjørn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Brian Dickerson on Geoffrey Fieger

In yesterday's Freep, Brian Dickerson calls Geoffrey Fieger a "courtroom Robin Hood...championing the rights of the downtrodden."

Umm...no. He strikes me as an opportunist who preys on the downtrodden, using legal tactics often found by appeals courts to be illicit, and receives headline-grabbing jury awards, even though the vast majority of them are struck down on appeal. His care doesn't appear to be for the individual plaintiffs he represents; it comes across as trying to make a quick buck on the occasional big-time award that doesn't get struck down, even if it appears that he knows that his idiotic tactics are going to screw over the vast majority of his clients.

Fieger plots a wide-angle legal defense
Detroit Free Press

Is Geoffrey Fieger a courtroom Robin Hood who has earned the powerful political interest by championing the rights of the downtrodden?

Or is he a multimillionaire businessman who has surreptitiously used his considerable wealth to magnify his own political clout?

The only reasonable conclusion, for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade or so, is that Michigan's best-known trial attorney is both.

But now that the U.S. Justice Department has him in its crosshairs, Fieger's freedom may depend on his ability to convince jurors that he is more the victim of a political vendetta than the legitimate target of a campaign to cleanse campaign finance.

Then treat her like an identity thief

Elvira Arellano has asked the President of Mexico to grant her a diplomatic post so she can return to the U.S. She wants to stop the federal government from treating her, in her words, like a "terrorist." I would agree that she shouldn't be treated like a terrorist. SHe should, however, be charged with the numerous felonies she has admitted to committing, including multiple counts of identity theft and filing fraudulent tax documents.

Deported Mexican migrant mom asks Mexican president to return to US as peace ambassador
The International Herald Tribune

MEXICO CITY: The recently deported illegal migrant and activist who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year, has asked the Mexico's president to appoint her "peace and justice" ambassador so she can return to the United States.

Elvira Arellano, 32, who sought refuge to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born, 8-year-old son, was arrested and sent back to Mexico on Aug. 19 after travelling to Los Angeles to attend a rally for the overhaul of U.S. immigration laws. Her son stayed in the United States.

"What I'm asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I'm not a terrorist and the United States can't continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists," Arellano told reporters after meeting with President Felipe Calderon at the presidential residence, Los Pinos.

In a news release, the president's office said Arellano asked the Mexican government to help her get a visa so she can enter the United States but it did not mention Arellano's request for a diplomatic appointment.

Even liberal media won't give Fieger a break

The liberal Detroit Free Press has conducted an investigation into the Federal Justice Department's methods for investigating illegal campaign contributions over the past five years. They have found other instances where charges were filed, including charges against Republicans. This clearly disproves Geoffrey Fieger's assertion that this is a crime that is never punished and goes a long way to disprove his ridiculous charge that this is selective prosecution.

Fieger not the first targeted for giving
Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON - Defense contractors. A toy company. A coordinator for a senior residence in Florida.

Those are among the people the U.S. Justice Department has charged with making illegal campaign contributions in the last five years.

This week, Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and his law partner Vernon Johnson responded to charges that they illegally reimbursed employees for $127,000 in contributions to former Sen. John Edwards' 2004 Democratic presidential campaign by saying they were singled out for political prosecution.

But a Free Press analysis Wednesday of more than a dozen campaign finance cases initiated by the Justice Department since George W. Bush became president in 2001 indicates that, while such prosecutions might not be routine, they do occur.

And charges have been brought against Republican supporters as well as those who gave to Democrats.

John Edwards claims environmental credentials

Despite driving an SUV, flying around the country in a private jet, and heating a 30,000 square foot home - including its full-size, indoor basketball court - John Edwards' campaign has the audacity to claim that he's "conserving at home." Of course, his campaign hides behind the idea that he's buying "carbon offsets" and this is his purchased indulgence. There's no reason he couldn't be content with, say, a nice compact sedan for his small family or a comparably reasonable 4,000 square foot house.

No matter what sort of hybrid engine he puts in his SUV or what sort of energy efficiency improvements he has for his 30,000 square foot house, he's still producing massively more pollution that the people to whom he is preaching environmental responsibility.

Edwards vs. the SUV
The Politico

Speaking to machinists in Florida today, John Edwards said he'd expect Americans to sacrifice their inefficient cars, and specifically to give up their SUVs, AP reports.

But campaigning turns out to be a pretty high-carbon practice. All the candidates ride around, particularly in Iowa, in big cars - Hillary rode an 18-wheeler; Obama rented an RV; and Edwards, whose convoy is often mini-van centric, had this Cadillac SRX Crossover beside him in Iowa on his arrival from announcing his candidacy for president in New Orleans, according to his Flikr stream.

Actually, Edwards isn't anti-SUV - he seems to be quite consciously avoiding the trap of appearing to demand that Americans drive only Trabants. His spokesman says he drives a hybrid SUV, the Ford Escape, at home in North Carolina, though the AP reported in April that the family has an SUV and a small truck as well.

His website says "Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck, or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy."

Union again backs a pro-illegal immigrant candidate

In a move which should surprise no one, the International Association of Fire Fighters backed a member of the pro-illegal immigration party. As they do represent government workers who are unlikely to be replaced by illegal immigrants, they are less likely than their fellow Union members to feel the effects of illegal immigration. The Union brethren, however, will likely not fare so well.

The addition of millions of new, unskilled workers will dramatically draw down wages and benefits for unskilled laborers either directly affecting Union members or presenting their employers with new competitors with employment costs much lower than those required for a Union workforce. Either way, amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants will mean the end of countless Union jobs.

Fire Fighters to back Dodd in surprise move
The Hill

International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) President Harold Schaitberger told The Hill Monday that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has won the union's coveted endorsement.

In an exclusive interview with The Hill, Schaitberger said Dodd was the candidate who had "earned their support," and that his long legislative record on labor's behalf was the key to winning the endorsement.

Schaitberger declined to comment on why other candidates, particularly those considered to be frontrunners, came up short. He said the Democratic field was strong but added that Dodd separated himself from the others by going beyond support for their legislative agenda and being "the guy who really carries our water" dating back to 1976.

Edwards: I'll keep my 30,000 square foot mansion, you give up your VUE

John Edwards gave a speech this morning in which he asked Americans to give up their SUVs. He was, not surprisingly, mute on the question of whether a family of 4 really needs a 30,000 square foot mansion. At least he doesn't drive an SUV himself, right? Oh, wait...he does...

It's a hybrid, though, so it must be alright. I mean, after all, it does get 27 miles per gallon in highway driving.

Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs
North Carolina News ABC 13

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

Edwards got a standing ovation when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He says tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.

He says jobs that provide equipment for America's defense need to be made in the United States.

Who has the "trophy wife"?

I just saw a picture of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's wife. Mrs. Kucinich is currently 29 and is 30 years younger than her husband. It wasn't that long ago that Republican Fred Thompson was criticized for having a young, attractive wife. Why wasn't the same attention lavished upon Rep. Kucinich?

Either way, I'm happy for both couples. It's none of my business who people love. I just hate hypocrisy.

How Kucinich Found Love
The Plain Dealer

On May 4, Elizabeth Harper walked with her boss into Dennis Kucinich's Capitol Hill office for a meeting and immediately noticed three things. In the reception area, she saw a visiting nun in white robes. In his inner office sat a shelf bearing an illustration depicting "light consciousness" and a bust of Gandhi.

She studied the lean and intense congressman and felt an attraction.

"Now this is an interesting man," she thought.

Politics over principal

Unsurprisingly, MoveOn.org is working to defeat Rep. Baird when he runs for re-election next year after he came back from Iraq and reported on the military successes there.

MoveOn, of course, is a Democratic front-group which has long been anti-war and is willing to say and do whatever is required to ensure that the United States lose the war in Iraq. So, it should come as no surprise that they are still denying the successes in Iraq in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nice!

MoveOn targets pro-surge Democrat
The Hill

Rep. Brian Baird's (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman is his own district.

Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old war.

MoveOn is calling the move a "flip-flop" and says it goes against the views of his constituents.

The ad does not make specific reference to Baird's conversion. Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird to bring the troops home.

The soldier in the ad served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and describes a scene from that time, long before the current troop increase that Baird has cited as the reason for military progress.

Baird voted against the war in 2003 and had opposed it until last month. Republicans have been quick to key on his remarks as evidence of progress in Iraq.

MoveOn disagrees, calling the war "unwinnable."

Soros is part of Feiger's 80%

After being indicted for federal election violations, Jeffrey Feiger recently pointed out, correctly, that 80% of all individuals who are indicted in relation to illegal campaign contributions are Democrats or Democrat supporters.

It looks like George Soros is a member of the 80%, as his PAC was fined for illegal campaign contributions.

Anyone surprised?

Soros linked group hit with huge fine
The Politico

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined one of the last cycle's biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.

America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.

The group's big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International union.

The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission's 33-year history.

ACT, which operations in 2005, was formed in late 2003 and rapidly deployed an enormous organization to do the retail-level grunt work of politics.

It opened more than 90 offices in 17 states from which it mobilized an army of more than 25,000 paid canvassers and volunteers to knock on doors, stuff envelopes, and make phone calls urging voters to defeat President Bush and support Democratic or "progressive" candidates including Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

The FEC dismissed allegations that that Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign laws by coordinating with ACT or accepting excessive contributions from the group.

This is heartbreaking...

If it's true that U.S. soldiers were so close to Osama bin Laden that his closest soldiers were planning to kill him and themselves, this is incredibly heartbreaking. To have been that close and missed is tragic.

Report: U.S. Troops So Close to Bin Laden His Bodyguards Considered Killing Him, Themselves
Fox News

NEW YORK - A patrol of u.S. soldiers was so close to stumbling on Usama bin Laden's mountain hideout along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border during the winter of 2004-2005 that his bodyguards considered killing the terror architect and then themselves, according to a report published in the Sept. 3 issue of Newsweek.

A sentry spotted the patrol and radioed an alert to bin Laden's 40-man shield who were prepared to move "the Sheik" - as bin Laden is known to his followers - to another location, Sheik Said, a senior Egyptian al Qaeda operative, told the magazine.

But the patrol was so close to the hideout that bodyguards were close to using the code word to kill bin Laden and then commit suicide, Newsweek reported.

According to Said, bin Laden had decreed that he would never be captured.

Ninjas live!

Apparently, three ninjas were apprehended in Rogue River, Oregon. It's a good thing the police have captured these menaces. Rumors that they were there training for attacks against pirates operating in the North Pacific are completely unconfirmed.

'Ninja' teens in Oregon not as swift as those in movies
Seattle Post-Intelligencier

ROGUE RIVER, Ore. - The three teenagers in hooded black outfits were scampering over rooftops, climbing trees "just like a squirrel," and breaking into houses and cars, police said.

But they weren't quite as slick as their Japanese ninja heroes.

Earlier this summer, an officer chased one of the wannabees across a school rooftop, but the youth leaped into a nearby tree, said police chief Ken Lewis.

Breaking branches on the way down, "he gave a yelp of pain," and then he scrambled away, Lewis said.

Quote of the Day

"We are obsessed with the undocumented aliens who are unskilled, but there is a major crisis with our skilled labor. It would be a national tragedy if they went back. We have our eyes focused on the wrong ball."

- Robert Litan, vice president of research at the Kauffman Foundation

It's so refreshing to see that the government is focused on making life easier for unskilled immigrants who jumped ahead in line, are either committing fraud or tax evasion, and snuck into the country illegally. I mean, why bother trying to bring in the highly-skilled, intelligent individuals who have worked through the system, have skills and abilities our country needs, and are living here legally?

1 Million Skilled Workers Stick in 'Immigration Limbo'
ABC News

Eight years ago, India-born Sacheen Kamath was hired by a U.S. technology start-up that was so successful it was quickly gobbled up by a California networking giant.

Although Kamath's work as a computer engineer has been stellar - he's led the development of a next-generation networking product - his life here has begun to fall apart.

With his temporary visa, he can't get a promotion because any change in his job description, or even his salary, would force him to reapply for a new visa. The temporary status makes it difficult to plan ahead and do simple things like look for a new job or even buy a house.

Kamath's wife is unhappy because under his visa she is considered a dependent and cannot work. It's a stressful situation, enough so that he has developed hypertension.

Kamath is caught in "immigration limbo" - like 1 million other talented legal immigrants waiting for a mere 140,000 permanent residency visas that are parsed out each year to highly skilled workers.

He applied for his so-called green card, which would give him legal resident status, in 2004, but when his company was bought out, he was forced to reapply, throwing him to the back of the line, meaning another four- to five-year wait.

Now Kamath wants to take his expertise and brain power home to India.

Lewd foot tapping

Senator Craig of Idaho pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct in association with an incident in a men's room. Accusations have been levied that he was engaged in a "lewd conduct" and that he was propositioning a police officer for gay sex.

The specifics of the case are as follows. He was in an airport bathroom, in a stall. In the stall, he was tapping his foot which, according to a police sergeant is "a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct." Next, apparently, came the lewd conduct. He allegedly passed his business card, showing that he was a Senator, under the stall to the plain clothes police officer next to him.

And, that's it.

Sen. Craig's future in question after sex arrest
MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who has voted against gay marriage and opposes extending special protections to gay and lesbian crime victims, finds his political future in doubt after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's room.

The conservative three-term senator, who has represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, is up for re-election next year. He hasn't said if he will run for a fourth term in 2008 and was expected to announce his plans this fall.

A spokesman, Sidney Smith, was uncertain late Monday if Craig's guilty plea in connection with an incident at the Minneapolis airport would affect his re-election plans.

"It's too early to talk about anything about that," Smith said.

The bombing of Iran...

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has some sharp words for Iran, saying that if diplomacy fails the options are "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

It's good to see France being led once again by someone who understands the cause of freedom, understands the threat of Iran, and understands that these are greater than France's economic interests. It has been long apparent that France had let its economic self-interest lead it into alliances with repressive regimes in Sudan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. It's good to see that France finally understands that short-term economic self-interest must give way when threats materialize.

It is a good lesson for whomever will be the next U.S. President to learn - we need to make a strong stand against the tyrannical dictatorships with which we share economic interests. Using our economic, diplomatic, and political influence to bring about democratic change must be a primary motivator in U.S. foreign policy.

France's Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes
Reuters

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

In his first major foreign policy speech, Sarkozy emphasized his existing foreign policy priorities, such as opposing Turkish membership of the European Union and pushing for a new Mediterranean Union that he hopes will include Ankara.

He also presented some new ideas, such as possibly renewing high-level dialogue with Syria and expanding the Group of Eight industrialized nations to include the biggest developing states.

Sarkozy said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and that major powers should continue their policy of incrementally increasing sanctions against Tehran while being open to talks if Iran suspended nuclear activities.

"This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I saw is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.

Longing for the old Obama

Whatever happened to the Barack Obama who was stridently anti-cynicism?

Obama Statement on the Resignation of Alberto Gonzales
Official campaign website

Barack Obama today released the following statement on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"I have long believed that Alberto Gonzales subverted justice to promote a political agenda, and so I am pleased that he has finally resigned today. The President needs to nominate an Attorney General who will be the people's lawyers, not the President's lawyer, and in Obama Administration that person will first and foremost defend and promote the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution," said Obama.

Move along, no crime here...

Geoffrey Fieger is going up the river. He was indicted for campaign finance violations in conjunction with raising money for John Edwards' presidential campaign back in 2004. He is accused of raising $124,000 illegally, through the establishment of "straw man" donors that his law firm reimbursed when the donated money to Edwards' campaign. John Edwards' campaign has been cleared of wrongdoing.

The indictment against him is pretty damning; individuals who are employees, vendors, or friends of Mr. Fieger, along with the family members of these individuals, donated money to the Edwards campaign and were then reimbursed within a few days by Mr. Fieger's firm. Most damning was a case where Mr. Fieger allegedly involved several of his friends in the scheme, reimbursed them personally, and then received a check from his own company indicating "Edwards Campaign Reimbursement."

Mr. Fieger's arguments are:

1) The U.S. Attorneys are all stupid. Apparently, because former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had some issues with Congress, all U.S. Attorneys are just stupid. It's typical for Mr. Fieger to launch into personal attacks so this is nothing new and frankly I can't imagine anyone being convinced by this level of argument.

2) The timing of the indictment is aligned "in the midst of fund-raising season." Of course, being well over a year from an election, it's hard to imagine when it wouldn't be in the middle of fund-raising season. You would think, if they were trying to harm democrats in the upcoming election, they'd find a more politically opportune time to release this information - perhaps next October?

3) "If reimbursement is a crime, then how could you give money to your wife, or your children, after they'd donated to a presidential campaign?" I'm not sure that admitting that his company used proxies to circumvent the campaign finance laws is a good tactical position here. Companies are rightfully prohibited from donating to a Federal election. Individuals are rightfully prohibited from donating more than a couple thousand dollars to a Federal election. Setting up proxy donors to circumvent these laws doesn't strike me as being much different than using a proxy to commit other crimes.

4) "We'll present a study showing that 80% of the political corruption cases they've filed have been filed against Democrats." This isn't something I would want to go bandying about if I were Mr. Fieger. If I were a Democrat, I certainly wouldn't want people to know that Democrats have been indicted in 80% of all Federal political corruption cases. To me, that would be pretty shameful.

5) Of course, there's the "it's politically motivated" argument that he's been screaming since the warrant was served. It is odd, then, that if this is politically motivated, they'd go after a washed-up, former politician wannabe who was beaten soundly by John Engler, of all people, while very clearly absolving John Edwards. who just might be the Democratic candidate for President. If it was really politically motivated, why be so clear about absolving Edwards? If it was just a political hack-job, why not time it better, "leak" some anonymous information from sources in the investigation, and make it clear that you are NOT clearing Edwards but are continuing to investigate his finances? For a political hack-job, this is pretty weak.

However you dice it, when you add everything up it loos like Mr. Fieger is getting sent up the river.

Fieger's pumped, ready for showdown
Detroit Free Press

Hours after his indictment on campaign finance charges that could send him to federal prison, Geoff Fieger sounded like a pitcher who'd just been tapped to start the first game of the World Series.

Not just determined or defiant, but pumped, practically gleeful at his good luck.

"You wouldn't think that they would be so stupid as to go after me on such a cockamamie charge," he said, laughing. "But then, you wouldn't think [U.S. Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales wouldn't keep going before congressional committees to say things everyone knows are lies. He does, though, and it turns out the fish rots from the head down."

In fact, Fieger has been predicting - and preparing for - his indictment since 2005, when the FBI executed search warrants on his law firm. He said the Bush administration was determined to destroy the fund-raising capacity of 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, to whose campaign Fieger and his partner Ven Johnson are accused of illegally funneling $127,000.

Fieger reiterated the allegation Friday, insisting that Republican strategists had long ago calculated that Edwards would be the most dangerous rival in 2008.

"Look at the timing of this indictment," he said. "it's right in the midst of fund-raising season."

Getting sick of this

Yahoo and MSN have signed pacts with China to keep an eye on bloggers, monitor what they write, and make sure they don't publish anything involving sex, violence, democracy, or criticism of the Chinese government.

I am getting sick of American tech companies working with the Chinese government in helping them repress the Chinese people. I can understand the moral issues - regulating sex and violence - but disagree with the sentiment. However, the assistance in helping the Chinese government crack down on peaceful political dissidents and governmental critics is reprehensible and inexcusable.

Yahoo, MSN sign blogging 'self-discipline' pact in China
AFP

U.S. Internet giants Yahoo and MSN confirmed Friday they had signed a code of conduct for their blogging operations in China that committed them to protecting the interests of the Chinese state.

Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and other blog providers in China this week signed the "self-discipline" pact, under which they pledged to "safeguard state and public interests," according to a statement from the China Internet Society.

The pact "encourages" the Internet firms to register the real names, addresses and other personal details of the bloggers, and then keep this information.

The firms also committed to delete any "illegal or bad messages", according to a copy of the pact posted on the society's website.

Along with sex and violence, China's communist rulers have also deemed that opinions critical of it or the spreading of democratic ideology are not allowed.

Agree with Obama's campaign worker.

"I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again."

- David Axelrod, adviser to Sen. Barack Obama

I totally agree with this statement. A unifying candidate would definately be very welcome. The question, though, is if Sen. Obama is the candidate to do this. Remember, this is the guy who would pull troops from Iraq even if he knew it could cause genocide, threatened to invade an ally in the war against al Qaeda, and would meet with leaders of Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba within his first year in office without precondition.

I'm not sure, but these might be diverse positions.

Obama camp: Clinton obsessed with GOP "attack machine"
The Hill

A top adviser for Sen. Barack Obama Obama (D-Ill.) said Friday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, is obsessed "with what she calls the Republican attack machine."

"I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again," said Obama adviser David Axelrod. He added that Obama could break "the sort of decades-long battle we've had over this jagged divide - red state, blue state, American against American - and try to bring people together and attack disaffected Republicans and attract independent voters so that we could built not just a victory, but a governing coalition in this country."

Axelrod also too a swipe at former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who is third among Democratic presidential candidates in national polls. Edwards, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2004, said this week that the country needs more than rhetoric about change in what was viewed as a jab at Obama.

Axelrod, prompted by a question during an MSNBC interview, said that Edwards's attack on Obama and Clinton could be a sign of desperation.

Gonzales out!

According to the Associated Press, Alberto Gonzales has resigned as Attorney General...

U.S. Sources: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned
Detroit Free Press

CRAWFORD, Texas - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire from congressional Democrats, has resigned, senior Bush administration officials said Monday.

A senior Justice Department official said that a likely temporary replacement for Gonzales is Solicitor General Paul Clement, who would take over until a permanent replacement is found.

Another official, also speaking on grounds of anonymity, said that Gonzales had submitted a resignation letter last Friday. These officials declined to be identified because the formal announcement about Gonzales was still pending.

High-hormone pills ok but low-hormone pills are not?

It concerns me that the "morning-after" pill is available over the counter but standard oral birth control is not. There are some valid reasons to require access to a doctor prior to dispensing oral birth control but the hassle of those visits may result in women using the Plan B pill as a primary form of birth control, with potentially dangerous results. If this is used in a long-term, regular fashion then the level of hormones being delivered will be much higher than when using standard, oral birth control and there are definite potential harms.

If oral birth control hormones are available, they should definitely include the standard, traditional pills which have a lower hormonal level. Lacking those will inevitably result in some women using the higher-dosage "morning-after" pill as a primary form of birth control with an up-tick in side-effects that could be avoidable.

Morning-after pill sales jump as access eases
CNN

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sales of the Plan B "morning-after pill" nearly doubled in the past year, exceeding expectations after the U.S. government allowed adults to buy the emergency contraceptive without a prescription.

A three-year battle ended last August when the Food and drug Administration decided that women and men 18 and older could buy the Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. product without a doctor's order if they showed proof of age at a pharmacy.

"More women know about it, and it's just becoming much more part of their mainstream reproductive health care," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said.

Plan B pills contain higher dosages of progestin, a hormone used in prescription birth-control pills for 35 years. Two Plan B pills reduce odds of pregnancy by 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, studies show.

Plan B sales hit about $40 million a year when the product required a prescription for all women. Industry analysts and Barr projected nonprescription access for adults, approved in August 2006, could boost sales to about $60 million in 2007.

The popularity of Plan B has exceeded those estimates.

Barr launched the nonprescription version last November, and the company predicts 2007 sales will reach about $80 million.

"We believe (sales) will continue to grow," Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox said.

Fighting for what though...?

Ayad Allawi looks like he's still trying to return to power in Iraq. For those who don't remember, he was the source for much of the information regarding Iraq's chemical weapons programs, which turned out to be false. He also served as interim Prime Minister of Iraq, a reign which featured a severe worsening of the security situation, numerous allegations of corruption, and lacking the confidence of the people of Iraq.

Now, he's trying to come back to power. Frankly, I don't see this happening. He has no credit with anyone in the U.S. government, anyone at the United Nations, anyone in the Iraqi government, or with the Iraqi people themselves. Reporting on this makes as much sense as reporting on Ron Paul's "run" for the Presidency.

Former Iraqi leader returning 'to fight for our country'
CNN

Iraq's former interim prime minister accused Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of fomenting sectarian violence plaguing the war-ravaged nation.

Ayad Allawi said Sunday he will soon return to Baghdad, to "reverse the course in Iraq."

Speaking from Amman, Jordan, Allawi told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," that al-Maliki leads a government loyal to Iran and Shiite interests.

Allawi accused the prime minister of "supporting militias to take the rule of law in their hands."

Allawi also said he would like to see the United States begin to withdraw troops immediate, but realizes the process could take more than two years.

"I would play my role in Iraq in whatever capacity is required to change Iraq into an unsectarian country, to a peaceful country, to a democratic country," Allawi said.

Could it be because it's true...?

Why is it that Democrats seem focused on the political effects of a terrorist attack and the Republicans seem focused on stopping them?

Hill: Terror Would Be GOP Boost
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold onto the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault white campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equiped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if'? 'What if'?" But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

Who's nostaligic?

You know, for someone who says he is against "outdated answers...rooted in nostalgia", John Edwards sure seems inclined to support outdated answers.

His answer for the poverty rate in America? Tax the rich, give to the poor, despite evidence that this has not decreased poverty.

His answer for fighting global warming? Apply economic hurdles to the auto industry, despite evidence that this has not decreased total emissions.

His answer for health care? Apply a government-run HMO like they have in France, the U.K., and Canada, despite evidence that this has not increased overall health care quality.

I'm in complete agreement with Edwards' priority on these topics. However, while his priorities on these (as well as on education) are in the right place, his methods are exactly the sorts of nostalgic, outdated answers that he's decrying. The answer to poverty is not transfer payments. The answer is improvements to education and economic growth, creating new jobs. The answer to the energy crisis is not mandating thousands of dollars of improvements to every car but investment in CNG, Fuelcell, and other future technologies while addressing the issue across all industries - switching from coal to nuclear power generation, dramatic improvements in home insulation requirements, movement to more energy efficient technologies like compact fluorescent bulbs and programmable thermostats - instead of focusing on one industry which is already highly efficient. The answer to health care is not scrapping a system which works for 85% of Americans but rather to refocus on how we spend money in emergency situations for the uninsured to give them a basic level of primary care to extend their lives, expand their quality of life, and to spend the same money more wisely.

Edwards slams Clinton, 'establishment elites'
CNN

WASHINGTON - John Edwards didn't mention a chief Democratic presidential rival by name, but it seemed clear whom the White House hopeful was targeting in a fiery speech Thursday in New Hampshire.

The former U.S. senator from North Carolina, who finds himself lagging significantly behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in most national polls, told New Hampshire voters to reject "establishment elites" and "outdated answers...rooted in nostalgia."

"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards said. "it's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt - and still is."

Clinton often touts the successes of her husband's administration on the campaign trail as does the former president.

But Edwards said that voters shouldn't replace "a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats." Seeming to take a page out of Republican talking points from the '90s, he added, "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate."

Why magnificent?

You know, I'm not even going to touch this one. The whole thing is ridiculous. These are six NCO's and an enlisted man, all from the same combat unit. They don't exactly have the big-picture context to really be making these kinds of determinations. The thing, though, that really gets me is that the New York Times is printing this op-ed from these seven. How many have they published from soldiers who believe the war can be won.

The Magnificent Seven
Soldiers pen a jaw-dropping NYT op-ed about the war in Iraq
Slate

In April 2006, six retired generals called for then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. In May of this year, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an active-duty officer, wrote an article lambasting the Army's general officer corps as lacking "professional character" and "moral courage." Now, just last Sunday, seven infantrymen and noncommissioned officers - all finishing their 15-month tours in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division - took to the New York Times op-ed page to dismiss prospects of victory as "far-fetched" and recent appraisals of progress as "flawed" and "surreal."

This last insiders' protest is the most jaw-dropping and may ultimately be the most potent. It is unusual enough to see officers - active or retired - publicly denouncing their military superiors or civilian leaders for mistakes or deficiencies in wartime. But for NCOs - none higher in rank than staff sergeant - to air their contrary views on the war (and, implicitly, their sour views of high-ranking policy-makers) is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented: an act of, depending on your politics, great courage or outright subordination - or, perhaps, both.

Daniel Gross continues the insurance claim denial myth

Daniel Gross, writing over at Slate, continues the myth that insurance companies routinely deny legitimate claims. This came to a head most clearly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when many individuals who had chosen not to buy flood insurance were surprised that they had no insurance to cover their loss when a flood destroyed their homes.

Insurance is a contract and it's a clearly legally enforceable contract. Whatever Mr. Gross might thing, all the lawmakers in the world won't let you get out of having to make a payment when it's legally required. Also, most lawyers who do insurance claims work do not charge hourly rates; they receive a percentage of the end settlement which usually is about triple what the company originally would have to pay out.

This, then, brings about a balance to what Mr. Gross describes as an insurance company's "powerful motivations not to pay legitimate claims" - the court system. Failing to pay a legitimate claim is a very easy case to bring to court and is a very easy case to win. An insurance company stands to lose, on average, about triple what they would normally pay out - not including their own legal fees - when a claim is incorrectly denied. As powerful as Mr. Gross's "powerful motivation" may be for insurance companies to act unethically and immorally, the compulsion of the government is much stronger still.

Besides, a huge number of health insurance companies - particularly in Michigan - are non-profits. If someone is really concerned about the profit motive and they're in Michigan, just go to Blue Cross or M-Care as both are non-profit companies.

I Can Get It for You Retail
Rudy Giuliani's health-care plan is great for insurance companies
Slate

Last week, Rudy Giuliani tried to add some domestic policy substance to his campaign by unveiling a health-care reform plan. His proposal, as Harvard economist Greg Mankiw noted, "sounds remarkable similar to the Bush health plan." In this year's State of the Union, President George W. Bush proposed a $15,000 standard deduction for health insurance, claiming a family of four making $60,000 would receive a $4,500 tax break to buy health insurance on its own. Giuliani would similarly offer a deduction of up to $15,000, which can be claimed by families that buy their own insurance. And, the New York Times credulously noted, "the money left over, he said, could be put into a 'health savings account' to be used to pay for deductibles or other uncovered medical expenses."

The time has long passed to be shocked by the ignorance that the press, many professional economists, and politicians show about the market for health insurance. After all, virtually all of them have their insurance paid for by a university, the government, or a Fortune 500 company. It never seems to have crossed the mind of President Bush, or Rudy Giuliani, or the Times reporters who uncritically noted his comments, how much insurance actually costs. (Or, in Giuliani's case, precisely which insurance companies are salivating over the prospect of insuring a 63-year-old, thrice-married cancer survivor.) The Kaiser Foundation found that in 2006, the average family premium was $11,480. (I've been buying my own - and my family's - health insurance for most of the last 14 years and claiming the tax deduction already available to self-employed people for the premiums. The policy I gave up when I joined Newsweek last month costs about $8,300 a year.)

Blogger Ezra Klein and my Slate colleague Timothy Noah have already weighed in on the various deficiencies of the Giuliani plan, and, by analogy, of the Bush plan. But I'd like to focus on another angle. For these proposals, which are championed by many who claim to have a natural sympathy for business, involve an understanding of business customer-supplier relationships doesn't seem realistic.

Does this mean Mexico will stop prosecuting Guatemalan illegals?

A Mexican Senate committee has passed a resolution in support of Elvira Arellano, who was recently deported back to her native Mexico. Ms. Arellano, remember, was the identity thief who sought sanctuary in a Chicago church for a year in an attempt to fight deportation. She was not charged with the numerous instances wherein she committed fraud and identity theft.

I do find it odd, however, that Mexican officials are so enthusiastic about supporting illegal emigrants to the United States when the government is so enthusiastic about punishing illegal immigrants from Guatemala.

Mexican Senate sides with mom deported from USA
USA Today

MEXICO CITY (AP) - A Mexican Senate committee passed a measure Wednesday urging President Felipe Calderon to send a diplomatic note to the United States protesting the deportation of an illegal migrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year.

The committee also approved a scholarship to help her 8-year-old U.S.-born son, Saul, who is an American citizen and stayed in the United States.

Elvira Arellano, 32, became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents by defying her deportation order and speaking out from her sanctuary in the Adalberto United Methodist Church. She announced last week that she was leaving to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for immigration reform.

On Sunday, shortly after she spoke at a rally in a Los Angeles church, she was arrested and deported to Tijuana, across the border from San Diego.

"We cannot remain quiet in view of this injustice and must ask for firm action from our authorities," Mexican Sen. Humberto Zazue said.

Obvious conclusion to the accelerated primary schedule...

Joe Lavin over at Slate has a great article which points out the logical conclusion of the race to move the primary schedule up as soon as possible: New Hampshire's primary was apparently yesterday. Well, okay, maybe not, but it's a brilliantly-written column.

EU urges Texas to end executions

"There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime."

It certainly keeps the individual convicted of the crime from committing any more crimes.

EU urges Texas to end executions
BBC News

The European Union has urged the governor of Texas to stop all executions as the state prepares to carry out its 400th death penalty.

Johnny Ray Conner, 32, will be executed on Wednesday in America's busiest death penalty state for the 1998 fatal shooting of a grocery store clerk.

The EU expressed "great regret" at the impending sentence and renewed its call to the US to halt judicial killings.

The punishment was "cruel and inhumane," said the EU.

The statement from the Portuguese presidency of the 27-nation bloc said: "The European Union strongly urges Governor Rick Perry to exercise all powers vested in his office to halt all upcoming executions and to consider the introduction of a moratorium in the State of Texas."

It continued: "There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime and the irreversibility of the punishment means that miscarriages of justice, which are all inevitable in all legal systems, cannot be redressed."

How big is big?

"'If we had this impact in the United States, say in Tampa or Miami the damage would have been catastrophic, on the order of tens of billions of dollars of damage,' said Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center."

This is, I might point out, one of the strongest hurricanes we've ever seen. Note that if one of the strongest hurricanes to ever hit struck the most populated and developed city in the Tropical Atlantic or Gulf Coasts, Miami, we'd be looking at "tens of billions of dollars of damage." Whatever happened to that $500 billion dollar estimate earlier this year?

Dean Bark Bigger Than It's Bite
ABC News

Hurricane Dean, one of the strongest hurricanes on record, is gearing up to make a second landfall on Mexican soil today after crossing the Yucatan Peninsula Tuesday.

Fortunately, Dean, which hit the coast as a Category 5 storm with 165 mph winds and gusts up to 200 mph, missed the most heavily populated resort areas when it made landfall early Tuesday.

After dropping to an 80 mph Category 1 storm overnight, Dean has now regrouped into a Category 2 storm, with winds around 100 mph. It may hit land before getting too much stronger, forecasters say.

It is expected to hit the coast later today just north of Veracruz.

It is moving through the Bay of Campechee, punishing Mexican offshore oil-drilling operations that produce oil for the U.S. market. Most of the platforms have been evacuated and the state-owned oil company Pemax has reportedly cut back production by as much as 80 percent.

Dean has already killed at least 12 people after brushing by Jamaica and the Caymen Islands as it sped through the Caribbean.

By the time Dean came ashore Tuesday over the tiny indigenous village of Majahual, Mexico, it had become the most intense Atlantic hurricane to make landfall in two decades, with a storm surge of 12 to 18 feet.

Non-story of the day

An International Herald Tribune story from the U.K. reports on what's obvious to anyone who's paying attention: the vast majority of hybrids are not economically feasible. A couple of errors in the story, though:

1) The Saturn Aura Greenline only costs about $1,500 more than the standard Saturn Aura and receives a $1,500 tax credit, making it an economically feasible vehicle and a full-sized sedan which has a 224 hp, V6 engine that gets 30 mpg.

2) The tax credit reported in the article ranges from $2,200 to $3,000. In actuality, it may be only a few hundred dollars for some vehicles.

Hybrids better for the environment than for your wallet
The International Herald Tribune

NEW YORK: All things being equal, who wouldn't prefer to own a hybrid vehicle?

The cars are cleaner and more efficient than their "fuel only" peers - not to mention that they are the global "it" car these days: California's green governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, drives one, of course, as does Prince Charles of Britain. So do Brad Pitt, Cameron Diaz, and Jack Nicholson.

But their may be another reason why so many of the rich and famous are among the small but growing club of hybrid owners: hybrids cost more - sometimes a lot more - than regular cars.

The price of adopting hybrid technology came home to roost when I recently priced weekly rental cars from Hertz for a series of trips and a vacation.

Quote of the Day

"Cheaper housing, coupled with higher wages for the unskilled. In the long run that sounds like a good combination, even if some of Jim Cramer's friends lose their jobs in the transition."

- Mickey Kaus on Slate.com, speaking about the housing bubble burst and it's relation to the recent crackdown on illegal immigration.

Different tax strategy

The Democrats want to radically alter how taxes are paid by corporations in order to raise revenue. Sounds like a tax increase to me, but they're describing it differently, of course. They're closing tax loopholes.

Here's a better idea - eliminate all corporate taxes entirely and require treaties with foreign countries to do the same for American businesses in their countries. Even if the foreign countries did not follow suit, this would encourage growth in the U.S. economy and would result in incredible job creation which would in turn yield higher salaries, more spending and thus more taxes at all levels.

Taxation is obviously necessary to sustain our society. However, it should be set up to encourage economic growth and investment as much as possible which is why elimination of corporate taxes and shifting the tax burden to the tax payers - perhaps through a national sales tax on consumer items and services which excludes food and medicine - would more efficiently raise taxes while increasing incomes and creating jobs.

Democrats to close tax door
Financial Times

With one stroke of the pen, a change to tax laws can achieve improvements in a company's profitability that would take a chief executive years to accomplish through hard work.

Even the most innovative businesses are attentive to the earnings-enhancing potential of tax law. Microsoft ranks top among companies lobbying in Washington for tax advantages, employing 63 professional lobbyists to influence those who draw up the rules.

But a stroke of the pen can also undo years of careful planning, as many multinational companies are discovering amid a move on Capitol Hill to change the rules for taxation of capital flows between subsidiaries.

A pledge by Democrats in Congress to crack down on tax avoidance and to pay for spending measures as they are approved has put the practices of a range of international companies under the spotlight.

"These multinationals avoid U.S. taxation on their actual earning by siphoning off revenues by sending payments through U.S. tax treaties countries with low withholding rates, before they are forwarded on to the parent corporations," a Democratic aide said.

Barnes & Noble shows noble mindset

Good for Barnes & Noble! Deciding not to carry the new O. J. Simpson book is a difficult decision, but putting morality over profit is a great position. I just hope other retailers - Amazon, Border's, Wal-Mart, etc. - follow suit.

Barnes & Noble Won't Stock O. J. Book
ABC News

If you're hoping to buy O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It," don't expect to find a copy at Barnes & Noble.

Citing a perceived lack of interest, the chain said the book would only be available by special order or for purchase online through BarnesandNoble.com.

"Our buyers don't feel there will be enough of a demand to carry it in our stores," Barnes & Noble spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

A rival chain, Borders Group Inc., said Tuesday that it would stock "If I Did It," a fictionalized account of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But spokeswoman Ann Binkley said Borders "will not promote or market the book in any way."

It should be obvious

Two illegal immigrants were charged in the killing of three promising college students in Newark.

This should have an obvious solution. If you're not screening immigrants, and allowing anyone who bothers to sneak over the border illegally and then live in this country through criminal means - either through direct criminal means like theft, drug dealing, and prostitution, or through identity theft, governmental fraud, or tax evasion - you're going to be unable to prevent criminals from entering the country.

Certainly, illegal immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. That isn't the point. The point is that by screening for criminals and those with violent pasts or lacking in job skills, we can eliminate some of the imported violence and that's something we're not doing.

We need immigrants coming into this country to make it work. However, if we're allowing immigrants into the country and immigrants desperately want to come here, why aren't we being selective about the ones who get here and keeping the violence ones out?

Newark Crime Spurs Immigration Debate
ABC News

Melvin Jovel, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, was arraigned this morning for the shocking execution-style killings of three promising college students in Newark, N.J., this month.

Fellow illegal immigrant Jose Carranza, from Peru, is already in custody for the shooting, and was arrested twice before this incident.

Their residency status has pushed this crime into the national debate over illegal immigration, with conservatives pointing to Newark as a sanctuary city that is hospitable to illegal immigrants. "Newark and it's political leadership share a degree of culpability...their actions have directly contributed to the deaths of these promising American kids," stated presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado.

"There is no excuse for city, county, and state governments to not have a rule that when you pick someone up for a felony, you automatically check to see if they're here illegally, or if, in fact, they are illegally in the United States," said former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Denial of choice

The British government is once again unacceptably meddling in the private lives of its citizenry. In yet another example of the fascism of liberalism, the government's politically correct mindset is gearing up to change the law to automatically consider any cohabitants legally married if they live together for at least two years, regardless of gender.

It's nice to see that government doesn't trust its citizens to make basic and fundamental choices about their own lives. if a couple wants to get married, they'll get married and it's no place for the government to step in and force the choice upon them. If they don't want to marry, that's certainly none of the government's business.

What's more, the proposal doesn't seem to make any further determinations as to whether there is a relationship or not, implying that roommates will take advantage of the situation in ways that are unintended. If you move in with a friend and live together for two years, you're suddenly entitled to half of his stuff? What's that?

The worst part is that this is making marriage an "opt-out" situation, literally. To not be held as part of this, you have to legally opt-out of the arrangement. What sort of society are we living in when the government's default is that if you live together for two years, you are legally joined for life?

Cohabitants set for same rights as married couples
The Independent

Unmarried couples could gain similar financial rights to those who are married under conclusive proposals released today by the Law Commission. The commission provides legal advise to Parliament which has a strong record of being implemented.

The rules - under which one partner could share in the other's wealth or financial support - would apply to couples who have shared a child, or lived together for more than two years.

Stuart Bridge, of the Law Commissions, said: "More and more families involve couples who are living together but who are not married. The law that currently applies to resolve property disputes between such couples on separation is unclear and complicated, and it can produce unfair outcomes. This causes serious hard-ship not only to the co-habitants themselves, but also to their children."

Worst retort in history

President Bush made the claim that history will show that the Iraq war was worth the sacrifices. Lacking a time machine, we can only resort to speculation.

Bush's argument is that past wars in Japan and Korea, where the U.S. stood up to tyranny and then stayed in difficult locales for long periods of time, and the results were two of the most democratic, strongest countries in the world. He feels that this can be repeated in Iraq. President Bush to a VFW meeting: "The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq...The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up an Asian Tiger that is a model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East.

This certainly is a position which one could reasonably disagree with except, apparently, if you're Harry Reid.

Senator Reid's retort: "President Bush's attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two." Okay, very good start. If there's a fundamental difference between the cases the President pointed out - Korea and Japan - and the newest cases - Iraq and Afghanistan - then that is important. What's the difference? Religion? Culture? Economics? Differing tactics? Nope - "Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history."

So, Sen. Reid's only argument as to why Iraq and Afghanistan are different from Korea and Japan is that we were misled? I'm going to set aside for a moment the arguments against the 'misled' part - you know, where I wonder why no one says that about Al Baradai, Putin, Chirac, either Clinton, or Al Gore, who all had the same information and were all in agreement about the WMD issue - but this is really the best you can come up with? We can't succeed in Iraq because the government "lied?" That's it? That's the big gotcha?

Just this morning, I was reading an article which said that liberals pose policy in "paragraphs" while conservatives pose policy in "slogans". I didn't realize that "Bush lied / people died" was a paragraph.

Thanks for the commentary...

Alan Fram continues the AP's new tradition of editorializing news stories, with this interesting dandy stating that the reason that conservatives read less than liberals is due to conservatives wanting "slogans" and not paragraphs.

Book Chief: Conservatives Want Slogans
AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why - and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple of slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Schroeder, who as a Colorado democrat was once one of Congress' most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."

Of course, as you read down, you get to the interesting point: liberals read a median of 9 books per year, conservatives read a median of 8. Now THAT is a result you should be making a big deal of.

The AP put out a second article on the same topic, one which is really going against the grain in that it is pretty balanced, which reveals some deeper insights: women (who are more likely to be liberal) read more than men (who are likely to be conservative); people over 50 (who are more likely to be liberal) read more than people under 50 (who are more likely to be conservative). People who are extremely religious (who are more likely to be conservative) are much more likely to confine their reading to the Bible than those who are not.

So, perhaps it's not that there's anything about conservatism which makes someone less likely to read, but rather a demographic issue.

Of course, to make the hack-job piece work, Fram had to find someone that he described as being extremely liberal to make his charge. So this really begs the question - what was the point of this article.

Gregg Easterbrook tells it like it is...

On ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback - a great column that focuses on football but meanders into politics, economics, philosophy, and life that is written weekly by a Brookings Scholar who happens to be a staunch NFL fan and a brilliant writer - Gregg Easterbrook writes about the gall that former Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton have in their taxpayer funded extravagances. Among the slights to taxpayers: $50,000 for travel for both Bush and Clinton; $70,000 for "equipment" for Bush and $80,000 for "phone service" for Clinton; a nearly $200,000 annual salary for all three (despite the fact that both Carter and Clinton are still working). The article's brilliant and I'd definitely suggest everyone read the entire thing.

Why the NBA simply doesn't rate:
Wealthy ex-Presidents reach into your pocket
ESPN

Recently, the Congressional Research Service announced the federal subsidies requested for the coming fiscal year by ex-presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton. Globe-trotting Carter asked for only $2,000 for travel; Bush and Clinton, both millionaires, wanted $50,000 from taxpayers for travel. Bush said he needed $69,000 for "equipment" and $13,000 for postage. Is Bush planning to mail 32,000 thank-you notes next year?

What's really offensive is that all three filed for the maximum presidential retirement payment of $191,000 annually. All these guys are wealthy, the elder George Bush having significant inherited wealth, yet all want taxpayers to hand them pensions seven times higher than the typical Social Security sum. This is extra galling because Carter and Clinton aren't even retired! Carter continues to write books that sell well; Clinton is active on the corporate speaking circuit, having earned an estimated $10 million speechifying in 2006. Clinton prattles on and on about the horrors of inequality, yet demands $191,000 in bonuses from taxpayers whose median household income is about 1/20th of his estimated $10 million. Why didn't the three ex-presidents request no pension at all? That would have been the dignified thing to do.

To top it off, Clinton requested $79,000 for television service. It is impossible, physically impossible, to spend $79,000 on telephones! If Clinton had a 10-cents-a-minute long-distance plan, he could talk long-distance 24 hours a day, 365 days per year - and you can imagine Clinton doing this - yet fail to burn through $79,000. The most expansive package offered by Verizon Wireless is an international super-phone with unlimited texting and four hours of talk time daily; this sells for about $3,000 a year. Clinton could purchase two dozen of the most expensive cell accounts available in the United States for the tax-subsidized telephone budget he requested. Is Clinton's $79,000 phone request fraud, or is Clinton planning to use the money to buy phones for staffers working on his private speaking business? An ex-president who had financial problems might legitimately turn to the taxpayer. For all three living ex-presidents to be quite wealthy yet demanding public subsidies is shameful - to say nothing of a failure of leadership.