The Seattle metro area is 3 to 4 times larger than Oklahoma City's.

I am surprized that the Sonic's owner believes that he would be able to mine more profits out of a smaller population base -- that is unless he has total destroyed the fan base in Seattle.

But then again, why would a sports fan like me know more than a megalomaniac owner like him?

Tim [War Room], you nailed it.

Unlike anything we have ever heard from the Bush Administration, Petraeus and Crocker appear to have given a fairly honest, sober assessment of what is going on in Iraq: It is a bad situation and that the stated purpose of the surge (providing breathing room for the government) hasn't happened.

They also appear to be trying their best to make Iraq functional and are deeply concerned about long term consequences for us and for the Iraqis.

Petraeus and Crocker are not the 'fools who jumped in' to this mess. They are a counter insurgency expert and a long time ambassador to the Middle East. They are the wise men to fix the mess the Bushies made. We may disagree with Petraeus and Crocker's proposed tactics -- but there are no easy solutions and we maybe unsuccessful no matter what we do.

The Bushies decision to immediately begin spinning this matter and to mischaracterize Petraeus and Crocker's testimony is typical and an insult to this country. Expect to hear more "We're kicking ass" and "Happy days are here again" tonight.

In 1995, Saddam's son-in-laws briefly defected to Jordan. In their few days outside of Iraq they were thoroughly debriefed and provided a great deal of reliable intelligence.

They stated that Saddam no longer had WMDs. That the WMD were destroyed after the first Gulf War. Despite the reliability of other information, the WMD information was either ignored discounted.

(The son-in-laws statements were used, however, by the Bush administration and Colin Powell to confirm that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the first Gulf War while ignoring the fact that these men stated that the WMDs were destroyed).

The son-in-laws were told that Saddam had pardoned them and they returned to Iraq in 1996 only to be executed.

Fret not Andrew, both you and your critical reader are right.

Yes, Capitalism is a force of nature. It is beyond good and bad. It simply is what is. It is chaotic and unpredictable.

But that said, Capitalism is governed by a set of rules, much like the laws of nature, i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, meterology, et. al. But it is we, not nature, that makes the laws governing Capitalism.

Capitalism is a product of the social contract. It's tenets are derived from our collective choice. We, collectively, believe that we are better off with Capitalism.

Capitalism provides a forum for free, but limited competition. It's basic tenets are: (1) people can own certain things (land, personal property, etc.), (2) people can use and develop their property within reason, (3) people can trade property, (4) There is a medium (i.e., currency) which people can use as a proxy for trading property, (5) people can trust the system.

This last tenet is the most important in the modern capital market. It is what allows us, without ever meeting anyone, to order something on-line or from another country. We presume (and have supporting laws) that we will receive the goods and it will work as advertised. In order for the capital market to work, we have to have faith in the system.

But as human beings, we instinctively recognize the value of a man's sweat and labor (I know, quite Marxian). We empathize with the plight of our fellow humans. We know what is "real" and what is not. We know that if a woman works hard, she should be able to count on feeding her family and being able to retire with some security. This is all part of the social contract. This is why we, as a nation, have adopted capitalism. We want it to make each of us richer and more secure.

If a man is struck by lightning that is nature at its capricous best, but if a man's retirement is stolen because he worked for Enron, we know that people, not nature, are fundementally at fault.

We have plenty of laws to give men and women confidence in the Capital system, these include laws against stealing, laws protecting the environment, laws providing social insurance, disclosure laws for publicly traded companies, labor laws, import/export laws. We have police and fire departments. We have roads and bridges. We have schools and hospitals. All of these things help the populace have faith in the Capital system.

Capitalism is not about unfettered competition. If it were, it would simply be about who has the biggest gun and can control the most territory. Think Mongul hordes. No, Capitalism is about unfettered competition within a very limit, restricted environment.

If Hedge funds and the way they operate cause us, the populace, to lose faith in the market, or worse, to suffer an increased chance of being materially injured, then the Capital market is disfunctional. Fundementally it comes down to the questions: Do Hedge funds make it more or less likely that the average person will suffer a material financial setback? Is the average person better or worse off with Hedge funds being such an important part of the market?

Yes, Capitalism is neither good nor evil, but it is governed by our laws and it is these laws that determine how Hedge funds operate. But we the people have these laws not to protect Capitalism and those that run or invest in Hedge funds, but to protect and rewards the "real" people who make up this country.

How can we best serve the people of this country: By allowing excesses of the Capital market, or placing limits to mitigate those execesses in order to protect the "real" people?