I was wrong (see how easy that is George?); they ran my letter in Thursday's paper. My Mom said it was good. My Dad wanted to know what to bring me when he visits me in prison. Ha ha (I think).

I wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor (Wisconsin State Journal) Saturday but I guess they have chosen not to run it. Their loss. The letter to which I took exception was titled "Feingold Censure Try Smacks of McCarthyism". Mine follows.

In response to the Saturday letter titled "Feingold censure try smacks of McCarthyism" I would like to suggest a more appropriate title: "Bush domestic spying program smacks of totalitarianism". What the defenders of this "program" seem to be missing (or choosing to ignore) is that nobody is or was attempting to hinder intelligence gathering of legitimate terrorist suspects; the law (which all of us are subject to) requires warrants to be obtained so that the other branches of government are kept in the loop. This makes it much harder to abuse presidential power to spy on political enemies or ordinary citizens with the audacity to disagree with the administration's policies. A vote to censure, telling the President that he does not get to make up laws or ignore existing ones, is the least that should be done.

The idea that Senator Feingold is just "playing politics" is what really gets me. Is nobody else troubled by Bush's blatant disregard for the law? By his deliberate attempt to exclude the other branches of government? I mean, WTF? Should he be allowed to do anything he chooses? No!

US military probes Iraq killings

"US marines have been battling an insurgency in central Iraq
US military investigators have flown to Iraq to study reports that marines shot dead at least 15 civilians, including seven women and three children.
The incident is said to have happened in Haditha on 19 November 2005.

The military's initial claim that the civilians died in a roadside blast was disproved by an earlier investigation.

Investigators will now ask if the civilians died in crossfire or were targeted in a vengeful killing spree, prompted by the death of a marine.

Iraqis often accuse US troops fighting insurgents of committing war crimes.

Their bodies were riddled with bullets... there were blood spatters inside their homes

Local residents in Haditha say the marines went on the rampage after one of their number was killed in a roadside blast and another two were injured.

They say the soldiers began shooting passers-by and the inhabitants of nearby homes dead.

'Collateral damage'

A military report at the time had said insurgents opened fire from all directions after the roadside explosion and the marines responded, killing eight fighters.



In the report, the deaths of 15 civilians were blamed on the initial blast.

Locals offered a different version of events, and the case was taken up by US news weekly, Time.

Time reporter Bobby Ghosh told the BBC a videotape, given to the magazine by an Iraqi human rights group, had shown the civilians "could not have been killed by a roadside bomb".

"Their bodies were riddled with bullets," he said. "There was evidence there had been gunfire inside their homes, there were blood spatters inside their homes."

The magazine says it presented its findings to the US military, which investigated the incident in January.

The preliminary investigation established that two Iraqi families were indeed killed by the marines, though it described the deaths as collateral damage.

Time says there is not enough evidence to show US soldiers deliberately targeted the civilians.

Now the case has been referred for criminal investigation by the US navy to establish whether the 12 marines involved were guilty of misconduct.

Human rights organisations have already said that if the 15 civilians were killed deliberately it would be the worst such case that has come to light.

There have been many allegations from Iraqi civilians that similar behaviour by US troops has caused numerous civilian deaths in combat situations, especially during the offensives at Falluja and elsewhere."

This is straight from the BBC News web-site
Anybody think that it's all just liberal media b.s. only telling the bad news and ignoring all the good news about how freedom is on the march and all that?

I propose statehood for Mexico. Possibly as more than one state; we can work that out later. Who's with me? Who's against? Here's my case:

Evidently there are many Mexican citizens that would rather live here. Or possibly it's not "here" so much as that they want to be one of us. Live like a U.S. citizen (pity them for not having higher aspirations). That part in parentheses is meant as a joke of course. It's actually what this is all about; not the real estate but the state of being. They want to live like us because we live better. True? I can't answer that but I'm thinking it's more or less so.You don't see too many of us wanting to go down there to live.

So that leaves two questions (at least). How many of them want to be "us"?

What do we want?

It might be good for them and bad for us. It also might be good for them and good for us. Who would be in favor? "Rich" people and business owners? Who would be against? Labor, laborers, people who "hate" Mexicans?

What about down there? Who would be against the idea? The people making money under the current situation. Politicians? The higher-ups in the police force? I don't know that much about what it's like living in Mexico but I'm thinking there are reasons why so many want to leave the only home they've ever known. They're trying to escape something, no? I'm sure it's not just wide-spread corruption keeping the wealth distributed inequitably that is their only problem Other factors might be scarcity of raw materials causing them to have to import much more than they export.
What do they export, anyway, other than labor?

If they are to be imported as cheap labor (I'm just saying if), why not just make them us? Because we'd have to pay them more, provide medical insurance, a secure retirement, stuff like that? Do we even have that? Would "we" lose some of what we have once there are more of "us"? Isn't the number (of citizens) mostly irrelevant? If an economy "works", the rules should apply whether one million people are involved or ten million or one hundred million, no? I guess we would be changing the percentages. I don't know how many of "them" would be something other than middle to working class but I'm thinking that their percentage is different than ours. I suppose it could be argued that they would work for less but how long would that last? Pretty soon there would be no more "they", just "us". And now there would be a higher worker to job ratio than ever. But that's only assuming that people can't rise up from the station they start in and become successful. Which is supposed to be a large part of the "American Dream", right?

Also, language would need to be addressed. They speak Spanish, we speak English. Though some of us do speak Spanish. And some of them do speak English. It would be great if everybody could speak both. For a variety of reasons I don't think that's ever going to happen. This could be a major problem and could doom my plan to failure.

I'm going to pause for a day and see if anybody has a comment; then wrap up tomorrow night (or the wee hours of Tuesday more likely).

Newsflash (read on the bottom line on ESPN) Commissioner Bud Selig is undecided on what to do regarding Barry Bonds and steroids. Or read another way: Bud Selig doesn't know what to do (hasn't got a clue?). Guess this sort of sneaked up on him.