Well, I wasn't the only one to notice this, as Powerline beat me to the punch, but according to the AP "Insurgents offer to end attacks for '08 U.S. exit"

Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks — including those on American troops — if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Imagine, the insurgents are willing to have American troops in Iraq longer than the Democrats! I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing.

"Court KOs Some Texas Districts"

This on the front page of MSN which then leads to the article entitled "Justices Revise Part of Texas Redistricting" which is still misleading. It is true that the court decided that some lines had to be redrawn (because 1 district had a problem) and it is true that "MAD" Howard Dean got a good long quote in this article to take all Republicans to task on voting rights (since we all know that Democrats don't gerrymander and allow everyone at least one vote):

“We now have clear evidence that Tom DeLay’s scheme did, in fact, violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and undercut the voting rights of 100,000 American citizens, especially Hispanic voters.

“The right to vote and have that vote counted is the most basic, precious right of our democracy, guaranteeing every American a chance to participate in our democracy. Recently we’ve seen that right under siege across the country by Republicans engaging in partisan political schemes that undermine our democracy.”

But the crux of the article is basically that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republicans, denying the Democrat accusation that what they did was unconstitutional, and only found ONE district (out of over 200?) that violated the Voting Rights Act and needed to be re-drawn and that was only by a vote of 5 to 4.

So the Republicans basically come out of this vindicated, but the headline, the quote and the tenor of the article still seem to want the reader to believe that the Dems won a small victory in this. That's just not the case.

Well I don't really expect Congress to do anything for me. In fact, I would prefer they do nothing for me AT ALL, so I guess I should suggest that the following post is as much a "positive" statement about Congress as it is negative.

I just saw some polls in the USA Today that suggest that Bush's approval rating is 37%, Democrats in congress are at 38% and Republicans are at 33%. I suppose the Dems can take that as a positive, but let's be real - politicians are NOT getting any love from their constituents, nor do they deserve it.

I don't keep close tabs on what gets accomplished, but just from my memory, here is what I can recall from the last few months about congress:

• Immigration: Senate and House pass bills that look nothing alike and it doesn't look too good that they will iron out differences and actually implement a new law.
• Iraq: silly political votes meant to embarrass each other as it relates to pulling troops out of Iraq. Although it has been quiet, I suppose they have voted to continue funding the war.
• Gay Marriage: wasting time trying to amend the constitution came up about 15 votes short
• Flag Burning: another stupid attempt and waste of time to narrowly amend the constitution barely fails.
• Energy: drill in ANWR; no action
• Minimum Wage: no action

Honestly, I can't think of anything they've managed to do that was worthwhile. If they have passed anything new - I believe a few things have been extended again, woo hoo - that is important, I can't think of it. In the mean time, they seem to be earning awfully high salaries off the backs of tax payers to constantly bluster and grand stand for the media. At this rate, their approval ratings will hit the twenties before too long.

I'd like to think that this election will make a difference, but don't count on it. When polls show that "in general" people are more willing to vote for Democrats (probably due to displeasure with current Republican leadership than anything Democrats are offering), but 61% believe their representative deserves re-election, you can be sure that incumbents will feel free to perform business as usual. Ughhh.

Why has there been more wrangling between science and politics lately? My guess is that the unprecedented expansion of government dating back to FDR and the New Deal have moved the government into areas it has no business being in. We've got the Global Warming controversy, stem-cell research and today's scientific certainty - the dangers of secondhand smoke.

I'm given to question any science that starts with sentences like "The debate is over." Al Gore spouts it about Global Warming and yesterday the Surgeon General Richard Carmona informed us that "there is massive incontrovertible evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses in adults."

What does this have to do with politics? Politics is increasingly about the government taking responsibility and thus freedom out of peoples' hands and placing it in the sphere of the ever increasing power of the federal government. This "science" will lead to additional laws to ban smoking as well as taxation and regulation.

Personally, I don't like to smoke and I don't like being near smokers if at all possible - in part due to health reasons, but more importantly because it stinks and the smoke gets into my clothes, hair and skin. It's disgusting. But, that doesn't mean that I think the government should force smokers to snuff it out on my account. The government is using this "scientific certainty" to force businesses and people to act a certain way. With several states suing the federal government to make the EPA list CO2 (carbon-dioxide) as a pollutant - yes, the stuff that you exhale on EVERY breath - what will be next??? Regulations on the air you breath, the water you drink or bathe with, the coffee you drink, the meals you choose to eat.

If the government can regulate anything and everything where science can show some detrimental effect on the public then we are in for less and less freedom in the name of the public good. That doesn't sound like anything GOOD to me at all.

Barbara Boxer:

"Here we have a situation where Democrats, 80 percent of us, voted to say we ought to start reducing our troop presence there -- and again, we got pummeled.  And now, it turns out, we're in synch with General Casey."

So basically, their call to pull troops out because of this "mistake" which we are "losing", is the same as General Casey saying that the situation warrants fewer troops. That's like saying Pat Buchanan and John Kerry are in sync because neither thought we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Oh wait, is Kerry for the war or against it? I'm losing track.

So I guess the strategy is to call for our troops to leave, calling the war a failure all the while, but then to take credit for getting our troops home? As we, and more importantly the Iraqis, get closer to success, we can be sure to hear the Dems get even louder about pulling out troops faster and faster and trumpeting actual troop reductions as proof that they are right.

What's funny is that this, like most of their other strategeries, will fail once again. People are not stupid and a strategery of constant bashing and no new ideas to contribute will once again lead to defeat at the polls. They can blame conservatives for "intimidation", "scare tactics", playing politics (as if the Dems don't play that game) or whatever, but they have no one to blame but themselves.