I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy of so many of these stances (in practice, at least). Internet gambling is such a perfect example. The GOP isn't against internet gambling because it's detrimental to society; they're against it because their localities can't tax it. Hastert has villified internet gambling at the top of his lungs while having no problem with casino licensing here in Illinois (which is, at best, run by a pseudo-mafia, and has well-researched social consequences).

I can respect people with serious moral and religious stances, even those that fly in the face of my own views. I have no respect for people who play the morality or religion card for their own personal gain, and that unfortunately describes the majority of our leadership right now.

C'mon, Ohians; how can you not vote for a guy named Zack Space? That's just plain cool.

Granted, this isn't the most absurd part of the argument, but since when is muted burgundy MORE gay than fire-engine red? As an avowed metrosexual, I just don't buy it.

Besides, it's not like Superman picked out these clothes; they were a gift from his parents. He's just wearing them to be polite.

Disregarding Iraq for a minute, I'm really having a hard time sorting out why we seem to be treating Iran and North Korea as roughly equal threats. Iran is in the early stages of work that could one day lead to nuclear weapons. North Korea very likely has nuclear weapons already, and not only has long-range ICBM's, but just fired six missiles toward Japan. In addition, while Iran's new leadership is extremist and has connections to terrorism, North Korea's leadership borders on psychotic and has a history of being wildly unpredictable. I'm not sure our foreign policy people have any concept of reality at this point.

Those silly foreigners: how could they interpret "Wanted: Dead or alive" as meaning that we desired to capture someone, either deceased or corporeally intact? It's funny how they misunderstand English sometimes.

I forgot Bush was in town until five military helicopters flew over our balcony this morning. I had some uncomfortable flashes of Gitmo for a minute or two. Thankfully, making inane comments on progressive blogs isn't illegal (yet).

And that's China. Do they have the military at this point to match us? No, but they do have a formidable amount of force to deploy and more than enough to create a global conflict. At the same time, we're busily wooing them on the economic front, and we can't afford the financial consequences of pushing them away. I actually have some positive views of Hu Jin Tao and think the Chinese leadership is undergoing a gradual but substantial change, but national pride and Communist roots still run deep, and they aren't going to let us march into North Korea without a fight. This ultimately has to be solved by the Asian powers (primarily, China, South Korea, and Japan).

It may be that the threat assessment is based on locations mentioned in "chatter". So, any place that has ever been mentioned and validated as a potential target may go on the list and count as 1 point (so to speak). Now, granted, that's still assinine, but at least it wouldn't be (1) random, or (2) completely political.

That said, it's clear we in this country have absolutely no sense of risk assessment. The CDC, etc. documents to that point are fascinating, and more people by far die of things like the flu in this country each year than died on 9/11. At the same time, we villify marijuana, for example, while cigarettes and alcohol kill tens of thousands. In the rest of the world, AIDS still runs epidemic, and ethnic violence is killing millions. In the U.S., we're all much more likely to die from obesity and terrible lifestyles than any sort of attack, and we need to be able to reflect those facts thoughtfully and unemotionally in our public policy. Unfortunately, thoughtfulness and unemotional facts don't win elections.

Tim, I have to chide you a bit for going for the easy prey on this one. The transcript (copied below from CNN.com) is fasincating, and it says a lot (between the lines) about how Bush and Blair see things. I almost get the sense Bush and Blair are having two different conversations, with each of them hearing what they want to hear (or resigned to the fact that the other won't change):

Bush: What about Kofi Annan? I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically cease-fire and everything else happens.

Blair: I think the thing that is really difficult is you can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed.

Bush: She's going. I think Condi's (U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) going to go pretty soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters. If you see, it will take some time to get out of there. But at least it gives people....

Bush: It's a process I agree. I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only or if she's gonna or if she needs the ground prepared as it were. See, if she goes out she's got to succeed as it were, where as I can just go out and talk.

Bush: See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

Blair: Cause I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if he gets a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's done it. That's what this whole things about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush: I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government.