Winston Churchill said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something, sometime in your life."

I was reading an opinion piece from the NY Times online. I apologize; I know each hit on their site just encourages them, but sometimes I can't help myself. The piece was written by Judith Warner, and was attacking (drum roll please) the nomination of Sarah Palin as insulting to women.

Hardly news, right?

I saw an entirely new reason presented for women to hate Gov. Palin. Warner says that it is shameful that the discussion of a female candidate has devolved to her childcare needs and breast pumps.

I agree that is shameful. But who was it that started that discussion? Let's rebuild the time line.

Palin is announced on Friday, August 29th, before noon.

Within the hour, the Obama campaign announces its disapproval of McCain's selection of a person whose experience is that of a "small-town mayor." Stop giggling. I know, she's a governor. I know, he should never deride anyone else on "experience."

By 8:00 that night, John Major at CNN has asked about whether she is a fit mother.

By noon on Saturday, most of the media has figured out the experience thing goes in a direction they should avoid, so they focus on the "bad mother" angle.

To be fair, some were asking legit questions about Palin's record and her stand on national-level issues. To those who focused there, thanks for doing your job.

But it was the press that made her family's recent and pending maternities an issue.

So now feminists are supposed to be mad at Palin because some members of the press are mysogynysts.

The whole thing makes me dizzy.

I saw an article on Politico a little earlier where the author was mocking the idea that the media owed Sarah Palin an apology. The article was well-written sarcasm. Made me want to write, "It's a human thing; you wouldn't understand."

If anyone is asking the media to apologize for questions about Palin's position on issues, I'm not aware of it.

If anyone is suggesting that the media crossed the line by doing any research into what folks in Alaska think about her - both her supporters and detractors - they're mistaken.

The issue is not that the media asked questions. I don't even think her family (or Obama's) should be off limits.

The point where the "media elites" crossed the line was when questions started to come up that would never be asked of Barack Obama. Or John McCain, for that matter.

The idea that CNN's Campbell Brown (one of many, sadly) would question Palin's fitness to serve because of her recent maternity is mind-boggling to me. The idea that a reporter would use the euphamistic "Some would say..." to cover the fact that the specific reporter is the Some in that statement is ridiculous. The idea that being the mother of a pregnant, unwed teen in any way reflects on Palin's ability to lead...sheez!

Apparently, many members of the press are closet Puritans. Who knew.

It is also apparent that they were never teenagers, never went through that time of life where the idea of parental respect usually goes on vacation for a few years.

In today's society if two of Gov. Palin's five kids remain unscarred by promiscuity prior to marriage, she's beating the odds, regardless of what she teaches.

I also saw an article today on ABC's site repeating the claim that Sarah had once belonged the the Independent Alaska Party. There was a quote waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the article from the woman who leads that party saying she already made it clear that wasn't true. How's that for responsible journalism?

And what of "Troopergate"? Heard yet that no one claims she was involved in the pressure on the appointee? Heard yet that the issue was an abusive father who tasered his stepson? As I wrote elsewhere, anyone involved in getting that thug out of a cop's uniform should get a medal, not an investigation.

If the media wants to ask about issues that relate to the job she's vying for, I say more power to 'em. But taking the easy way out by looking for excuses to dismiss her rather than weighing her experience and growth in her political life is not Pulitzer material.

Am I sold on her as the very best qualified person for the Veep slot on the ticket? Don't know. Don't care. She is the candidate; second-guessing that now seems kinda pointless to me. If the McCain campaign had asked my opinion, my suggestion would have been even wackier than a moose-hunting beauty queen.

I think she brings a lot to the ticket, and I know that's why people are usually selected for the junior spot. Selecting her was no more cynical or desparate than was Kennedy choosing LBJ, or Obama choosing Biden.

Senator Obama is spending a lot of time explaining how superior the amount and type of experience he has compares to that of Gov. Palin.

The Senator has a legendary ability to focus and ignore things he calls "distractions." I'll not attempt to list all of the things that have been dismissed as distractions in this political season, since that list would be a distraction in and of itself, but I'm sure you've heard the term "distraction" thrown about once or twice regarding things you thought might be real issues.

However, he does not seem to be able to find that focus, that inner voice, when it comes to the comparisons between himself and Gov. Palin.

He is fixated.

He has to keep coming up with examples of how he is better than she.

His campaign staff has a budget 36 times that of Palin's mayoral town. He manages 1200 people - she only managed 60-ish, maybe.

Ignoring the issue that he has a campaign manager and chief of staff who are primarily responsible for the things he is taking credit for handling, and that she is a governor now (not just a small-town mayor), it still fascinates me to watch his responses.

One does not respond so vorasciously out of casual dismissal; one does it out of fear.

So what fears could there be that would explain this behavior?

• Mysogyny has to be a major suspect. The idea that anyone could compare him to this woman, and maybe give her some respectability in the balance, might be more than he can take.
• His own need to prove himself is a driving force. There was an interesting article in the Chicago Trib last week about how Obama is always requiring more of himself ("Must do better" was the catch-phrase in the piece), is very driven to rise to the top of whatever arena he enters. He has a right to this presidency. He is supposed to walk up and just claim the throne, because he is smarter, better-looking, and more urbane than his opponent. And now people dare to compare him to this backwoods, gun-toting, fisherman's wife-beauty queen? How dare they.
• His inner voices/doubts, which are usually behind both mysogyny and an (artificially) high level of personal drive, could be a factor. When he selected Joe Biden as his running mate, many saw an indication that he saw his own weakness in experience and foreign policy. His introduction of Biden as "The next President of the United States" was also seen as a Freudian slip, as if to say, "I know I'm not worthy; how about this guy?". Most people who are subconsciously unsure of themselves eventually turn to tearing others down in order to make themselves look better, or at least to feel better. I sense a lot of that in his attacks on Palin.
  

If I didn't already find Palin's candidacy just the right tonic for the McCain ticket, this would seal the deal for me. Any time you can get a presidential candidate to keep comparing himself to your veep choice, that's a good thing - especially if that Presidential candidate is already struggling with appearing presidential. Obama is off message, and is beginning to show some desparation in his attacks. I don't think Mr. Obama can stop himself.

No He Can't.

I offer an unsolicited suggestion to Mr. McCain and his crew regarding the RNC. Few people really care about the convention, other than those who are supposed to attend. Much of the middle seems to buy the idea that conservatives are heartless.

So what if the RNC convenes in New Orleans (or wherever Gustav hits) and spends most of the time doing emergency relief, clean up and rebuilding? Tell the network people they are welcome if they also come to help, but this is not to be a photo op.

Unless the Ron Paul people have perfected a plan to take over the convention, I can't imagine anyone but the vendors in St. Paul being upset by the change of plans.

Realistic? Probably not. But I can dream.

When John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate yesterday, the energy level of conservatives spiked as it has not in 20 years. It has been a long time since we were able to look at the Republican Party's leadership and not feel a little stung by the "rich old white guy" rhetoric of the left (not that they had much room for pointing fingers, mind you). It has been a long time since we were able to see someone up there who really lives like one of us.

The immediate take on the MSM was that this was a play for the Clinton backers, the PUMAs. I beg to differ. While the left chose to interpret her introductory speech as a play for those voters, I saw it as an honest recognition that her presence on that stage did owe itself to a couple of women who, whether we all agree with their ideals or not, have opened the door for other women to raise their voices in politics. It is fitting, when you look at how Palin has truly reached across the aisle in filling her cabinet and in getting legislation through the Alaskan legislature, that she would mention those who made the "glass ceiling" appear not-so-thick.

Susan Estrich, a liberal Fox News contributor, had an article up almost as soon as Palin's name was out stating how the Republicans had another think coming if they thought women would flock to Palin. That was demeaning to women, sayeth Estrich, to think that they would vote based on anatomy. I agree. That is condescension at the same level as assuming that someone might vote for a candidate based on pigmentation.

Palin deserves a closer look not because she is a woman, but because she was willing to take on the criminals in her own party.

She deserves consideration because she is not the normal product of the slow-grinding political machine that turns smart people into bobble-headed mouthpieces.

She deserves consideration because she recognizes that being a representative of the people is a priviledge, and that it does not deserve priviledges.

She deserves consideration because she walks the talk - she knew the likelihood of her baby being born with developmental issues, but stayed true to her beliefs (and Trig isn't a showpiece for her; he is a blessing).

She deserves consideration because she is skin-and-bones evidence that conservativism is not dead.

Strange that it took John McCain to bring us Sarah Palin.

John Edwards has a lot of 'splaining to do.

Edwards was very clear in his condemnation towards those who would not take their marriage vows seriously. He spoke frequently of his devotion to his ailing wife, and was vocal in criticism of (R)s caught with their pants down.

And today, the news is headlining MSM news sites that Sen. Edwards is admitting that he was involved with the woman at the center of the story no one would tell except the National Enquirer. But, he assures anyone listening, he wasn't the baby's daddy. The timing wasn't right for that, he says.

Now, I know, the progressives will claim that this is all about the sex, and that's what gets the waters roiled for those of us who don't support Sen. Edwards. They just don't get it, do they?

The issue is integrity.

Integrity has been defined as making sure that what one does when the lights aren't shining on you matches what you say when they are. I think one could add to that definition that integrity is shown when one is able to 'fess up rather than cover up.

I watched how my parents dealt with my dad's terminal cancer. I saw how she stood with him, stood for him when necessary, as he declined. It would never have occurred to her to go elsewhere during his illness. She was committed to him, and that superceded any selfish desires.

Edwards had the affair (strike one), lied about it repeatedly (strike two), and now says "but I didn't father the child" to try to trivialize the affair.

Three strikes, John. You're out.

Obama opened himself up to a lot of criticism with the "air pressure" statement. I know that is really not his entire energy policy, but his full statement was that proper tire inflation would do more for energy prices than drilling off-shore, or wherever McCain thinks we should drill.

To be fair, "O" has reversed his view on drilling, since the polls clearly indicate he was marching to a non-populist drummer on that issue; but let's look at some of the arguments against drilling.

Argument 1: Drilling won't return anything useful for seven/ten/fifteen/thirty years

That would have been true had we started from scratch twenty years ago. However, there are plenty of producing wells, and moth-balled wells, that can be producing in anywhere from six months to two years. The company I work for is one of those pioneering sideways drilling, allowing the oil and natural gas companies to use existing wells and reach new pockets with a few days of work, rather than the months that are required in a new field. To some extent, that kind of work is already happening.

Argument 2: Big Oil will just raise the price...

The only way ths works is with a level of collusion among the industry giants that boggles minor conspiracy buffs like me. The biggies are in competition with each other. I pass several clusters of gas stations on my way home, and I see it all the time; one station drops the price, the others have to follow suit to get any customers. Coordinating the ballet of the pricing signs would require a coverup that defies mortal capacity. We can't even keep military secrets that are vital to national security off the front page of the New York Times - how likely is it that the big oil fatcats could be involved in such a large conspiracy and get away with it?

Argument 3: Demand is rising globally; more supply won't help

Demand is dropping here in the US (primarily due to the price). Most analysts looking at the global market recognize that the East (China and India, not Boston) has only just started what is bound to be a masssive increase in demand. As that continues, the curve will shift, and not in a way we will like. China is cash-rich, and will be able to buy up the mideast oil faster than you can say "currency rate".

Is that a reason to give up on producing more? That seems backwards to me. Seems like we should be getting more into the production game to keep pace, at the very least, with demand rather than trying to avoid it.

Here's a thought; if we are sitting on large oil reserves, and China gets thirstier than the mideast can supply, where will they go for the oil? We could become a source, equalizing our trade debt, and buying back some of our debt China holds. Or we could sit on this ocean of resources and pray that the People's Republic doesn't decide that they will exploit what we are ignoring. Over our dead bodies, you say?
Exactly my point.

Argument 4: We need to be developing other sources...

Great. Let's do. But the reality is that we are completely, utterly dependent on oil. If you were facing an operation, imagine the surgeon saying, "Blood is nice, but it has a limited supply. We're going to switch your blood out with vinegar while you're asleep." My guess is you might cancel the surgery. And see about having that doctor committed.

Wind power sounds nice. But wind farms only work if you have wind. That means that much of the country would need some alternate source of energy during calm periods. Or some honkin' big rechargable batteries. Is that the back range of the Rockies, Cletus? No, Maw, that's the front range of the Duracells.

Solar is great for water heaters, or swimming pools (the largest use of solar, according to today's Wall Street Journal). I moved from Cincinnati back to the sunny south because I have seasonal affected disorder. In layman's terms, I am affected by lack of sunlight. The kind required to get much from solar panels. I saw an estimate that we would need a solar farm larger than the state of Texas to provide a fairly insignificant amount of power.

Nuclear - I include it, in part, just to see if any liberals will hyperventilate. But it is the most efficient and reliable alternative out there. As others have pointed out, even France depends on nuke power. Heavily. But good luck getting that by the eco-warriors.

And to move the power... from any of these sources, the WSJ article mentioned earlier will require tens of thousands of miles of cable to get the power from places where they might be generated to all the folks who need to use it. That will be a budget-buster for sure.

Argument 5: We need to get away from fossil-fuel cars

Alternative fuels - how's that working for you? Like what's going on in the price of corn? Wait until we plow over the state of Iowa in order to produce enough corn to replace something like 10% of the gas used by cars.That will be fun. Oh, and watch the price of beef in the fall. People bailing out of the cattle-and-fowl-as-food industry flooded the market earlier this year, in anticipation of the cost of staying in business. That will lead to shortages in beef and poultry in the next several months. And I'm completely ignoring the food riots in other parts of the world because the American breadbasket (and others) were focusing on gas rather than pedestrians.

Oh, and at the moment, the process of creating ethanol still causes more CO2 than regular gas refining. But don't let that bother you.

Electric cars - I love the purely electric cars currently on the road. Especially when the shriners wear the clown suits while driving them.

But at the moment, electric cars can't go more than 30-ish miles before the juice runs out. That's one way to my office. THat's half-way to the office for many in metro Atlanta, and I know we're not unique among larger towns.

There is also the question of where all that power for all of those electric cars will come from. Let's see, the West Coast, Chicago, and the Northeastern Corridor have rolling brownouts every summer. Seems like we're a little short on electric power already. And I have yet to hear one of the geniuses backing electric cars to recognize that "cheap electric power" will not be so cheap once you and I are totally dependent on it.

And lastly, the projected price of the best thing the electric developers have so far is around $48,000. Granted, the price will drop as new innovations come out; but that can hardly be seen as relief for the common person.

No way around it - the current energy situation is not pretty. But you can not build an energy plan around technologies that only work on the scifi channel. Nor can the average American afford the price to make Obama's dream a reality.

NASA has announced that the Phoenix Mars Lander has discovered salt in the soil of the red planet. NASA engineers seemed a little giddy when they made the announcement, but it was later explained that scientists in the control room play a drinking game based on elements identified by the lander.

"Oh, yeah, " said one researcher who asked not to be identified, "We each take a shot when our element is found."

And how are the elements assigned?

"We have a pretty honkin' big computer down here."

There may or may not be some kind of life on Mars, but there certainly is at NASA.

Empress Nancy pulled the plug on C-SPAN and sent her minions home...but, finally, the Republicans are showing some spine. Ignoring the rush for the exits, a dozen GOP reps stayed on the floor, denouncing her highness' high-handed approach to governance. A few more have joined the ranks, and continue to talk to anyone listening about the Dem leadership's overbearing efforts to silence the opposition. They are primarily protesting the fact that they have been blocked from even raising the issue of drilling for oil, a measure that enjoys roughly 75% support from the American people.

I believe Nancy is protecting her tribe, making sure the Republicans can't use their votes on this issue against them in the current campaign season...but it may also be that Queen Nancy knows she would lose if she allowed the showdown to happen.

The lights in the House are off. The mics are dead. Queen Nancy did cut the feed to C-SPAN so there would be no coverage. But the Republicans who stuck around recognize a golden opportunity. It ain't the Boston Tea Party, Part Deaux; but at least, this one time, the folks we elected to represent us are trying to do that even in the face of dictatorial leadership.

Viva la revolution.

JJ the Magnificent, or Je$$e as I've seen him called elsewhere around these parts, has convinced me; it really is okay to use words that you tell others not to use. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, unless I'm said goose.

I submit the following guidelines for any future references to me:
- I am 'caucasian', but I find that label offensive. I'm not a big one for caucuses. If you voted in a caucus this year, you may refer to me as caucasian, but I probably won't like it very much.
- My heritage includes quite a bit of Irish. Only fellow Viking-Irish-English-Missourian-Americans can refer to me as 'Mr. Potatohead' without getting a shillelagh up side the head. If you are a former VP, 'Mr. Potatoehead' is also unacceptable.
- I am one-thirty-second Cherokee. If you call me a redneck, you'd better be referring to my pickup truck and hound dog. Wait, I don't have a dog.
- I am heavy-set. If you wear pants with a waist of 42" or above, you may refer to me as 'The American Buddha', but you thin-lings had best keep such comments to yourself.
- I am balding. See previous comment r.e. 'American Buddha'.

Yessir, I feel tremendous freedom to now dictate how others should refer to me, and absolutely no pressure to treat others in the same way. Thanks, Mr. Jackson.

I believe Jesse Jackson is an intelligent man. I disagree with his viewpoint on 99% of the issues, but he has to have some smarts to be able to continue to shake down American businesses so successfully.

But there is something about having a microphone in front of him that drops his IQ. The science of recording technology is his kryptonite. There can be no other explanation.

A few samplings of Jackson's gaffes:

• 1973: Nixon was unsympathetic to blacks because, among his top advisors, "four out of five are German Jews"
• 1979: Few Jewish reporters "have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs"
  
• 1984" Jewish people are "Hymies" and New York City is "Hymietown"

The list goes on. Since most who will read this post are either familiar with Jackson's silver tongue or know how to use g00gle, let me suggest that we look a little closer at Jackson's template for an apology.

He never regrets making the remarks.

No, seriously; stop giggling. It's true. He regrets that he was overheard, he regrets that some have chosen to interpret the comments to be offensive, he regrets that people are focusing on what he said rather than how the government (or specifically those with an (R) next to their name) are really to blame.

Look at his 'apology' for his tasteless comments caught by Fox on Sunday: "It was not a public speech or a declaration."

Um, Mr. Jackson, you were in a TV studio, sitting in front of a microphone. You may not have meant for it to be a public speech, but it was.

Truth is, he regrets being caught.

I see someone else in the news who has learned from Mr. Jackson. Barack Obama is also unable to apologize for doing something wrong without focusing on how he was misunderstood, how his comments were misconstrued, how he is only sorry that it might detract from his messianic persona.

Guns and Bibles, anyone?

One difference, though. Where Jackson has no regrets, Obama regrets almost everything. I saw an article in the Atlanta paper today where the author pointed out that an internet search on 'Obama' and 'regrets' returns over a million hits (who says he hasn't accomplished much?).

But neither is ever to blame.

Jerusalem was a mess. Babylon had carried away most of the able-bodied men and women into captivity, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the wall around the city, and the economy was a wreck.

Atexerxes and his Persian empire, the one that replaced the Babylonians in prominence and dominance, had a little different management style. He sent many of his captive Isrealites back to Jerusalem and used a governor to be his eyes, ears, and hands in Judah. One of those governors was named Nehemiah.

Nehemiah stepped into an ugly situation. Those who had money were lending it to their countrymen at ruinous rates. Those who could not pay would face foreclosure that generally meant giving one's children, wife, and self into slavery to work off the debt.

Stop me if this sounds familiar.

Nehemiah was entitled to special treatment as the governor. He could levy taxes as he saw fit,  was entitled to nice food every day, had a boatload of cash from Artexerxes with which he could buy up the land  from under the working poor.

But he didn't.

Instead, he used the cash for a massive bailout plan, paying off the debts of many of the people so they could be freed from captivity. He went out and worked on the wall as it was rebuilt, shoulder to shoulder with the people he was ransoming. And he had a serious heart-to-heart (I would use the phrase "come-to-Jesus meeting", but we're still a few centuries early for that) with the wealthy folks, specifically those who were enslaving their fellow Isrealites. He reminded them that what they were doing was a direct violation of God's commands, but added that even if it weren't, they knew what they were doing was not the right thing.

Nehemiah rebuilt the wall. He restored a flailing economy. His story is recorded in an area of scripture generally reserved for prophets.

So how is it that he could convince people to work against their selfish interests to do something better for the country?

He led by example. He had moral authority to ask others to sacrifice, because he did not take advantage of his priviledged position. He not only had a bully pulpit, but he had a place to stand - on his convictions.

I think this is one of the reasons we are struggling with whether to go to the polls this year. It isn't just that we disagree with the policies and politics of McCain, Obama, et al. It is, for some of us anyway, the feeling that no one who is still in this contest believes much of anything they say on the campaign trail, with the possible exception of Ralph Nader.

And no, I'm not voting for Ralph.

Whatever happens in this election, I sincerely hope that whatever party ends up being the party of the Conservative body looks for someone who is a true believer. A believer not in the religious sense, but in the sense that they carry true convictions. That they can't be bought easily by the typical tradeoffs we expect in Washington. That they don't take advantage of personal position for their own gain, but that they use their authority to help people outside their circle of friends. That they recognize the value of the individual as more than a vessel towards re-election, but as a contributor to the American experiment.

It's a crazy dream, but it's mine.

Thanks to Andy Stanley, NorthPoint Community Church, for the inspiration this week.

Senator Obama pledged yesterday that his proposed administration would make faith-based program support by the government something more than "a photo op." Writing as a devout Christian and fledgling Libertarian, I suggest a different approach. Let's get the government out of the charitable support business altogether.

Study after study has shown that private organizations do a much better job of getting charitable dollars in the hands of those for whom they are intended than government ever could. The current administration used that as their basis for establishing the office for faith-based initiatives. They thought that money the government was collecting and handing out could be better directed through this office. I think the Prez' heart was in the right place; but he started from a false assumption. The assumption is that government has any business in helping the poor.

This assumption took root from the War on Poverty, and has flourished to become a large portion of the federal budget. If someone were to step back and look at the whole picture, they might say that the War on Poverty has only brought more poverty.

I would suggest that federal income taxes be cut by the same percentage that now goes toward charitable causes and programs that support the needy. Let's see what would happen if people were given back the money they earned and were given more of an opportunity to support the programs that work, programs that get the money to where it is used for helping the poor rather than the administration of the charity.

Doubtless, some charities would fail, particularly those that have received millions in taxpayer dollars but use it for everything but really helping people get out of poverty.

Arthur Brooks, in his book The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Who Really Cares found that conservatives are much more willing to give to help those in need than were liberals. Liberals like to support causes, not people, says he. Brooks, by the way, is a self-professed lifelong liberal. This was supposed to be a tell-all about how uncaring conservatives are. The facts didn't fit his hypothesis. I appreciate when someone can accept the facts rather than say that their research must be flawed.

The Better Business Bureau has a list of charities and "Wise Giving Reports" which detail the collection and distribution of funds for charities. There are other sources.

The point is, we can make good choices in terms of what we support. We are much better equipped to make decisions about what set of needs we feel should be supported than any set of beaurocrats ever would be.

Power to the people.

It has been said that "No Child Left Behind" has been a failure, as schools are forced to spend a fair amount of the year teaching to the test, rather than focusing on other indoctrination efforts. This causes a strain for many educators, as they signed up for the opportunity to mold little minds into small minds, not to teach specific subjects such as mathematics or reading.

In recognition of the failure of this program, I suggest new legislation called "No Child Undirected." The heart of this proposal consists of IQ tests to be administered at grades 1 and 6. Once a median has been established, a child's direction in life will be determined based on his or her score.

For those students who score above the median, they shall be given an education with college prep and essential life-skills in mind. For instance, financial planning at the level required for a CFP (Certified Financial Planner) should be required for this group of students. They will also be required to memorize the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and take firearms training. As they move out of their years in education, they should be granted the same choices of occupation and location available to all today.

Regarding the other group of students, they should be given classes on self-esteem and encouraged to read pop culture magazines. They will be specifically groomed for the jobs for which they are best suited - sanitation engineer, haircare professional, Congressional Representative - and will be assigned a specific living location upon graduation. Those locations will be strategically chosen along the most active fault lines, within coastal cities that sit below sea level, and near nuclear waste facilities.

This may seem harsh, but a certain level of population control will be required as thisa half of the population is generally the most prolific.

The details need a little work, to be sure; but I feel reasonably certain that this plan would cure much of what ails this nation today. I would suggest this effort be undertaken by the next Congress.

And so it goes. Last week we had the Supremes deciding foreigners involved in attacking US troops had Constitutional rights. Let's all hold hands and sing, "We Are The World."

The courts are now deciding who should and shouldn't be labeled an 'enemy combatant.'

Why should we bother with all this election nonsense? The Judicial can just decide what's best without the help of those other pesky branches of government. Might as well refer to the Executive and Legislative as 'twigs' rather than 'branches.'

Knowing what we do about how the good folks in China treat ethnic Uygurs, especially those who are proven to have ties to terrorist groups, let me suggest that we just send Hazaifa Parhat back to China. I'm sure he will appreciate the kindnesses shown him as a guest of the state there compared to the treatment he has suffered under U.S. hands.

As Admiral Painter says in The Hunt for Red October, "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."