The San Jose Mercury News ran a front-page article yesterday which was kind of interesting, as it posed the question: "Should illegal immigrants count in the census for determining how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives?"

While at first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer, it really isn't. Historically, up until now, they have counted -- ever since the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.

Continue Reading »

I have to say that Democrats are acting awfully un-Democrat-like in their political handling of the SCHIP debate. I say this, because they're winning. Big time.

I have to split today's observations into two groups, though: strategic and tactical. Strategy (for those unfamiliar with precise military terms) is all about the Big Picture -- the main goals you want to achieve. Tactics are smaller -- how you're going to go about achieving your objectives on a very small scale. Politically (for instance), your strategy might be to end the Iraq war. Your tactics are which bills you support in Congress, and how you present your case to the American people -- what is the best possible way to achieve your strategic goal, in other words.

Continue Reading »

There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the United States actually does go ahead and bomb Iran. There are a lot of different scenarios which could lead to this point, of course -- a "false flag" operation (think: Gulf of Tonkin Incident); Iranian military captives the United States swears were killing Americans in Iraq being paraded before the television cameras; provoking the Iranian Navy and swearing we were in international waters and not Iranian waters -- there are many ways to make the case for war before the eyes of the world, so it's not very productive to worry about which method it may take. But let's assume George Bush presents some sort of a casus belli to the world, which is immediately followed by the United States military dropping bombs and cruise missiles on Iran.

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

Time for another round of Democratic talking points, for the benefit of whoever's going to be on this weekend's Sunday morning talk shows (or for any Democrat anywhere in front of a television camera, for that matter).

I must admit it's been kind of a frustrating week. There are a few things Democrats did this week which are just indefensible, in my opinion. They are beyond my power to spin, in other words. So, to follow a cardinal rule ("never give your opponents an opening"), I'm just not going to mention any of them here, I'll just say Congressional Democrats who voted for such nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. You know who you are, and you know what I'm talking about.

Continue Reading »

I'd like to offer a modest proposal in an area I've never written about before -- sports.

My wife and I were watching the Washington Redskins attempt to play football last weekend, and I noticed the rather bizarre helmets they were wearing, which looked like they had become the Washington Registered Trademarks. The announcer cleared things up by explaining they were "period" uniforms, since the Redskins are celebrating their 75th anniversary this year.

This brought up the subject of their regular logo:

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

If two groups of peoples in violent disagreement with each other on the world's stage (be they different countries, dispossessed groups, or factions within a country) have exhausted all diplomatic options, is the inevitable result war? Or is there another way to address their vastly different viewpoints of history (and the conflict at hand) which could have a better outcome?

An opinion piece ran in yesterday's Roll Call which proposes a truly innovative and original concept: Instead of closed-door diplomatic meetings, why not try working out differences in the public arena? More properly stated: When diplomatic measures have already failed, why not try something new -- since there's nothing left to lose at that point?

The author of this extraordinary proposal is John Connolly, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Dialogue. The idea (in a nutshell) is: when all other diplomatic methods of resolving a disagreement have already failed, why not try something different? Have both sides publish their views of the history of the conflict to the world's audience, in publicly available media -- and let the chips fall where they may. Each side would make its case to the world, for all to see. As charges and counter-charges are published in a continuing process (over a period of months), each side could rebut legitimate points made by the other in subsequent releases -- in an attempt to sway world opinion to their relative perspectives.

Continue Reading »

Sigh. Here we go again.

That was my reaction to reading the AP headline "House Panel Debates Hip-Hop Lyrics." The whole article is depressing to read, especially the following paragraph:

"This hearing is not anti-hip hop. I am a fan of hip hop," said subcommittee chairman Bobbie Rush, D-Ill., who gained national prominence in the 1960s as the founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers. But he said there was a need "to address the issue of violence, hate and degradation that has reduced too many of our youngsters to automatons."

How the mighty have fallen. An ex-Black Panther has nothing better to do as a member of the House of Representatives than this? Wow.

Continue Reading »

Is it time to call on Harry Reid to step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader?

This column poses the question, but admittedly, provides no clear answer. This is because I feel the subject is still one that is legitimately up for debate, but I also feel that the time has come to begin this debate. And let me be clear -- I am not suggesting he resign from the Senate, but rather that he hand the reins of Senate leadership over to a more able Democratic colleague.

I pose the question reluctantly, since infighting is generally counter-productive for a political party that wants to move its agenda forward. And Democrats admittedly have a bigger reputation for such infighting than Republicans. But sometimes a change in direction is the smartest plan of action in the long run.

Continue Reading »