Does anyone see a teensy, tinsy, minor error in the last paraggraph of this EDITORIAL 9Note, NOT an op-ed, but an actual, this is what our best and brightest think, EDITORIAL)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thu3.html?ex=1346212800&en=5771d1b2efbc93eb&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I was reading my local paper and came across this article about broadband access and cost in Japan versus the US.

Apparently, "Broadband service [in Japan] is eight to 30 times as fast as in the United States -- and considerably cheaper. Japan has the world's fastest Internet connections, delivering more data at a lower cost than anywhere else, recent studies show."

How did this happen? Well, two things contributed to this rapid improvement in internet infrastructure.

I'm watching the Atlanta Falcons pre-season game tonight on Monday Night Football and not surprisingly much of the discussion is about Michael Vick. One of the commentators, Tony Kornheiser, just made one of the more ridiculous statements I have heard in a long time that betrays his inflated view of his profession.

Tony noted that the Atlanta Falcons organization has asked the media not to ask any of the players about Michael Vick during the game tonight. Tony said that this is censorship and that the journalists have the right to have access to the players and ask them anything they want.

Well Tony, it takes two to tango. Journalists certainly have the right to ask anything they want. But people (and organizations) have the right to not answer. We (non-journalists) don't owe you anything. We don't have to provide you with a sound clip. We don't have to answer questions we don't want to. We don't even have to acknowledge you.

I have just received breaking news that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. Of all of the missteps and disasters of the Bush Administration, allowing Gonzales to remain this long has got to be one of the most egregious.

At what point does loyalty become stubborn pride? Bush's loyalty is the stuff of legends. But blind loyalty, especially to incompetence should not be celebrated.

I believe that Gonzales has gotten off too easy. At minimum he should have been fired from his position rather than being allowed to voluntarily resign.

Update: Here is the response from Bush:

President Bush on Monday said he reluctantly accepted the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

After months of standing by his top prosecutor and "close friend," Bush spoke briefly in Texas to praise Gonzales, saying the attorney general endured "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department."

Bush said it's "sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person" is impeded "from doing important work."

That is pathetic! "Good name dragged through the mud"? An "honorable person"? There are only two ways to view Alberto Gonzales in regards to the US Attorney scandal. Either he deliberately lied about his involvement or he was remiss in his job and didn't know what the hell was going on. Take your pick but I can't see that there are any other options.

Care to join me on a Sunday night thought experiment?

I learned in PoliSci 101 that a basic difference between conservatives and liberals in America is the underlying belief about the nature of mankind. Conservatives tend to think that man is inherently bad/evil in nature, while liberals tend to think that man is basically good. This, of course, underpins policy actions and belief in legislation. And regardless of how you view mankind, both sides have long arrived at the idea that forcing two animals to fight for human enjoyment shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society.

However, what has long confused me is the position that libertarians take. They generally don't take a position on mankind's inherent nature and instead focus on private property and maximizing freedoms. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that "you can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe upon me" is the libertarian motto. As far as I can tell, libertarians don't have a position on animal fighting, other than people should be allowed to do with their property as they see fit without government infringement.

At the risk of re-igniting Expat's passions on the subject, I'll point out that National Review has an interesting analysis today of Richardson's campaign to date.

As a side note, maybe Expat will respect NR a bit more now that he's been called a "tuned-in Democratic activist" in its (e-)pages (see penultimate graf). Ha!

Apparently, Giuliani is against illegal immigration this week (last week he was in favor of amnesty) and said, "We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration."

Does he not know that illegal immigration has been a problem for America since those white folks showed up at Jamestown. As long as America is the beacon of freedom or the land of opportunity, people will come here, legally or illegally.

For years, The New Republic stood out for me as a place to go to hear reasoned, reasonable, well-articulated discourse from those to the left of me that I could respect. And until recently, Franklin Foer was nothing more to me than the author of an immensely enjoyable and educational, if slightly mistitled book, How Soccer Explains the World.

But I won't be buying any of Foer's books anymore. And as for The New Republic...well, they've now been consigned, in my book, to the heap of sources I now must discount as questionable (although they'd probably call the company good in that heap, since they're there with fellow fabricators the New York Times, CBS News, and NBC news).

Here is the latest from Eric...

Day #260 for Eric in prison

Dear Friends,

Out of concern for my safety, my defense team and I have been extremely passive and gracious to those responsible for this injustice. Some might be surprised to know that despite the overwhelming evidence proving my innocence and a growing network of global support, the indicators and nuances we are getting here tell us that my freedom is not getting any closer.

As I enter into my 9th month in prison with no word from the appellate court and with the authorities increasingly violating my rights to defense (see Appendix 1), it has become obvious that an adjustment to our approach is needed. I have waited as long as I can to write this letter, but as a man fighting for his life, I’m left with no other choice.

Last week, republicans called for a bill to amend FISA, and demanded that the bill be enacted into law before Congress took its summer recess. Republicans claimed that the move was "necessitated" by a still secret FISA court ruling that declared George Bush's electronic surveillance program unconstitutional.

Think about that for a moment: A judge declares the undisclosed practice unconstitutional so instead of abandoning the practice, the response is to change the law to 'authorize' the practice deemed unconstitutional?