So Long Lisbeth Salander

So sad. We just finished reading "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest," the final installment in Stieg Larsson's trilogy of wildly best-selling novels from Sweden. Having spent most of the summer enjoying the exploits of spunky Lisbeth Salander, we now have a big empty spot in our reading schedule.

Even sadder is that with Larsson having died shortly after finishing the trilogy, we probably won't be hearing anything new from Salander, other than wild speculation and debate over who should play her in the upcoming American version of movies based on the books. (Our vote: Nathalie Portman.) (Larsson did complete most of a fourth manuscript, so maybe we'll one day have a further visit from Lisbeth.)

So, what can we do with the rest of our summer?

"Restrepo"--Tough To Follow

We recently saw "Restrepo," a documentary film produced by Sebastian Junger (of Perfect Storm fame), which follows a company of American soldiers stationed in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan.

We'd have a hard time recommending the documentary unless you've also read Junger's recent companion book, "War," which in turn expanded on a series of Vanity Fair dispatches from 2008-09. Even then, it's tough to sit through.

The book is good, capturing the day-to-day life of American foot soldiers fighting, and sometimes dying--on an almost daily basis--at the furthest extension of western military power into that remote region of the world. It certainly makes you wonder what, exactly, we're trying to do in Afghanistan and whether the mission is worth it.

An important part of the book is probing the lingering social/emotional damage done to these young soldiers by their service.

Unfortunately, the movie, which has a limited release in theaters, is hard to watch. It's very raw footage, with almost no narration, and no other props of a good documentary--no maps, no context, nothing. For those who've read the book, it does put faces on the soldiers you meet while reading, but that's about it. For those who haven't read the book, like our friend, it was very confusing.

It's also difficult to watch because much of the action takes place with a handheld camera during combat operations, resulting in a lot of jerking and bouncing around. By the end, we were getting pretty queasy, like with motion sickness.

Another problem is that in combat, a camera person needs to keep his or head down. So we see lots of scenes of American soldiers firing loud, heavy-caliber weapons, but we never see who, or what, they're shooting at. The sense you get, however, is that they're firing large quantities of ammunition and ordnance at a very small number of enemy fighters, many of whom are local young men paid a few dollars by the Taliban to take potshots at the Americans.

It is a dangerous game, however, as we do see wounded, and killed, American soldiers. And occasionally some Afghans as well.

Raw film alone does not a good movie make, however. The footage shown in Restrepo* would best be used as the heart of a good television documentary, with a narrator, some maps, and some other visual and verbal aids to telling a story.

We can't imagine that Junger would have a very good book if he just transcribed a bunch of interviews with soldiers and stitched them together as separate chapters. Yet, that's the feel of the movie--it feels unfinished, lazy even.

So, read the book. And hope the film footage shows up later in a better edited, more finished format that tells a real story.

*The film is called Restrepo in honor of Army medic, Juan Restrepo, who was killed during one of the frequent firefights in the Korengal Valley, and for whom one of the forward operating posts manned by the Americans was later named.

Storms of my Grandchildren

Weatherunderground's Jeff Masters has a nice review today of climatologist James Hansen's new book, "Storms Of My Grandchildren" HERE.

Palin, Tea-Partiers To Exempt Pentagon Fraud, Waste and Abuse?

According to today's WSJ, Queen Sarah Palin and her Tea-Bagging allies are under pressure to exempt defense spending from their attacks on the federal government's spending ways.

If they do so, they won't be Tea Partiers. Instead, they'll be Republicans, who traditionally have turned a blind eye to defense spending.

What, you don't think the Pentagon, which spends about a quarter of the U.S. budget, is subject to fraud, waste and abuse? You don't think defense spending contains pork? You don't think there's purely politically motivated spending going on there? You don't think there are corporations making a mint off Pentagon projects?

Think again!!

It's Official: We're In A Drought

Although the big weather focus of late has been on the HEAT, it's also been quite dry.

So dry, in fact, that much of Northern Virginia has now been officially classified into a drought by the denizens of the US Drought Monitor.

Doesn't look like there's much in the way of drought relief on the horizon either. After a fall and winter punctuated by serial coastal storms driven by El Nino conditions, it's now been several months since we've had any true rainy couple of days. We'll get some thunderstorms, but they provide spotty coverage, and the water runs off quickly. Ok for streams, but not great for plants.

Just a couple years ago, many parts of the Southeast endured lengthy severe drought conditions. We fear we're headed back that way. By fall, we may be hoping for the drought-busting remnants of a tropical storm or hurricane to head our way!

!

Committee For A Worse Arlington

Actions speak louder than words.

The so-called "Committee For A Better Arlington" is pushing for a change in the structure of Arlington's County government. We've already explained why the change is unnecessary and would only make things worse.

The Committee's actions, however, bespeak much. To get a referendum on the issue on the November ballot, the Committee needs to submit just over 14,000 petition signatures by July 14. Arlington election officials would then have to scramble to verify the signatures.

Nothing prevents proponents of the referendum from submitting petitions on a rolling basis. So far, however, they haven't presented a single signature, so officials are waiting, bracing to be dumped on at the last second. Of course, that will require bringing in extra personnel. It will cost taxpayers more, and potentially interfere with other work.

Is this really the type of people you want pushing for a "better" government?

Their approach to the petitions is simply further evidence that this is a small group promoting their own very selfish interests--not those of Arlington's general public.

[We think the Committee is delaying the petitions as part of a deliberate strategy. If election officials can't verify the petitions in time, the measure will have to be decided in a special election, rather than in November. Proponents may figure that the small turnout in a special election favors them. Of course, a special election will mean even MORE taxpayer dollars for this ridiculous measure.]

Wone Case: Judge Leibovitz Got It Right

Yesterday, Judge Lynn Leibovitz issued her ruling in the fascinating obstruction of justice case arising out of the murder of D.C. attorney Robert Wone.

We happen to know Judge L. from way back--she was a student (a good one!) in a legal writing class the Curmudgeon taught to first year law students when he was a third year student at Georgetown.

For those who haven't been following the case, here's a synopsis. Wone was working late one night, and had an early meeting the next morning. Instead of trekking back to his suburban home, he stayed overnight with a college friend and fellow attorney, Robert Price, at Price's townhome in D.C.'s Dupont Circle.

Within an hour of arriving, Wone was dead, stabbed in the chest while in the guest bedroom of Price's home. Price and his two roommates--all three of whom were in a committed homosexual relationship--told police they believed an intruder stabbed Wone. Police never bought that story. Instead, they believe one of the housemates did it, with the others covering; or, perhaps, Price's brother did it and they were covering for him.

Police never had sufficient evidence to charge anyone with murder. But prosecutors eventually cobbled together a conspiracy obstruction of evidence and tampering case against the three housemates. Price and his co-defendants waived a jury trial, leaving it to Judge Leibovitz--a former prosecutor herself--to decide their fate.

Yesterday, Judge L. acquitted the three defendants, while at the same time saying she didn't necessarily believe their story. Based on what we read in the Washington Post, which covered the case intensely, she made the right decision (not that reading about it in the newspaper is the same as being there).

While we absolutely believe the three defendants are covering up a murder, the prosecution's evidence was weak. The prosecution argued that the defendants delayed calling police while they cleaned up the scene, removed a lot of blood, and switched the real murder weapon with another knife.

Problem is, there was never a good explanation for why the defendants did all this, i.e., what benefit it was to them.

The prosecution also suggested that the roommates might be covering for Price's brother, who had had trouble with the law before, and who a few months later did break into Price's home to steal items in support of an apparent drug habit. Here again, however, there was no explanation of why Price's brother would've attacked and murdered Wone, who was in a second floor guest room at the time.

There are all kinds of things that don't add up in the case. The first is why Wone was there in the first place. At the time of night when he arrived, he could have gotten to his own home in about a half hour. By all accounts, Wone and Price knew each other in college, but weren't particularly good friends.

Then, there's the issue of whether Wone was sexually attacked. The Post repeatedly hinted at this, from its police sources, but there was no such evidence at trial as far as we could tell.

The person who's actions seemed the most suspicious based on the evidence at trial was Price's roommate Dylan Ward. His bedroom was next to the guest room, whereas the other two defendants--Price and Victor Zaborsky--were on the third floor. According to testimony and 911 tapes, it was Price and Zaborsky who heard something going on in Wone's room and came running down to find out what. Zaborsky placed the 911 call. Meanwhile, Ward--right next door--apparently did nothing, at least according to their stories to the police. We find that awfully suspicious. He should have been the first on the scene.

In any event, Price and Zaborsky had somewhat different recollections of the events--not too far off, but enough to sound like they agreed on a story, but didn't work out every detail before being interviewed by detectives.

It's certainly not clear why any of the roommates, or Price's brother, would've wanted to kill Wone.

Unfortunately, the evidence was just too weak to meet the prosecution's burden of proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

That doesn't quite mean the defendants are off scot-free. Wone's family has filed a $20 million civil suit against the three. The burden of proof will be lower, and some additional evidence may be admitted. We can only hope that justice is someday done in this bizarre case.

South Carolinians Have A Real Choice For Governor

For the past year, South Carolina has been the butt of many jokes on late night TV. SC is comedian Jon Stewart's "favorite state" because it's politics are so messed up that one can only make fun of the state.

The problem is that for ordinary South Carolinians, it is no laughing matter. Unemployment is high. The state's economy has been floundering. And the state government, firmly in the control of Republican politicos for many years now, is a dysfunctional mess.

The current governor, Mark Sanford, is--thankfully--term limited. Not only was Sanford a national disgrace for his affair with an Argentine dancer, but in eight years as governor he accomplished little. In Sanford's view, the government is not there to help people.

The Lt. Governor, Andre Bauer, was so bad that he came in FOURTH place in a four person primary for the Republican nomination to succeed Sanford (and he was generally acknowledged as the reason Sanford wasn't forced from office).

Instead, the Republicans nominated a heretofore little known state senator, Nikki Haley, who's claim to fame is that she is a Tea Partier fancied by Sarah Palin. She may end up just as embarassing to the state as Sanford, as two male political operatives in the state have claimed to have had affairs with the married Haley.

[Haley denies it and claims there's no "evidence" to support the claims. Where we come from, testimony is evidence. Plus, one of her suitors has phone records showing hundreds of hours of contacts. That's evidence, and usually these things turn out to be true.]

Putting aside Haley's bedroom exploits--which Republicans seem ready to overlook when it's one of their own--she represents nothing new for the Palmetto State. Yes, she's a woman, and yes, she's Indian-American; but she's really just more of the same. As a state Senator, Haley refused to disclose outside income from "consulting" activities, claiming it was exempt from ethical disclosure requirements. Yet, nothing could be more important to disclose than who she's "consulting" for.

In the "Tea Party" mode--something she seems to have adopted as the current fad--she espouses low taxes and limited government. In other words, she won't do anything, other than favors for her consultee friends.

Now, there is an alternative for voters in the Palmetto State. Democrats have nominated Vincent Sheheen, a state senator from Camden. Sheheen's three boys attend the same public school he attended.

Sheheen would be a breath of fresh air. Every indication is that he is a true family man, with a long record of dedicated service to his church and his community. As a state senator he has vigourously pursued reformation of state government to make it more open and efficient.

We hope SC voters get to know Vincent over the next few months. Many white voters in the state have a knee-jerk aversion to anyone running as a Democrat, but those voters ought to look at the laughing stock that the Republican Party has made of their state. It's time to take a fresh look. Haley's "Tea Party" is no change at all; if voters want something new--a government that serves the people, then they should look closely at Sheheen.

Suppose They Had A Primary And No One Came?

It looks that way today in Arlington for the Republican primary to challenge Jim Moran in November. We haven't seen more than one car today in the nearly 20 parking spaces wastefully set aside at our local precinct.

Why couldn't the five Republicans here in the County have just had a convention, in a phone booth?

SC GOP Campaigns Are ALWAYS Nasty

Over the past few days, both the New York Times and Washington Post have run stories on the nastiness of the Republican primary campaign for governor in South Carolina. The Post's story had as it's theme that in a state "accustomed to two-fisted politics" this year's race "stands out."

Baloney.

South Carolina politics are mean and nasty, and never rougher than when the Republicans are battling it out with each other. Just ask John McCain from when he ran against W Bush in the Palmetto State primary in 2000.

Or, for that matter, ask just about any candidate in a seriously contested race in the state. Dirty politics were invented in South Carolina, then packaged for export to the rest of the nation by the late Lee Atwater and his political acolytes.

[This is a stark contrast to Virginia, where the moderate middle of independent voters really hate dirty campaigns and will often penalize a candidate viewed as taking the low road. But then, that's long been a distinction between the two states.]

This year, the spotlight has fallen on GOP candidate Nikki Haley, a state senator running for the Republican nomination for governor. It's a classic case. For awhile, Haley was ignored. An Indian-American who'd never run for statewide office, Haley was trailing along in fourth place.

But then she started bashing her male colleagues as an "old boys club" (which they are), and began moving up in polls. Suddenly, two long-time political operatives associated with other campaigns claimed they'd had sexual liaisons with her (she's married), and another state senator made inappropriate remarks about her ethnic background.

This is par for the course in S.C. Maybe even tame. Politics in SC has a long tradition of "whispering campaigns"--usually word of mouth libels, sometimes backed up by cheap flyers placed on windshields in church parking lots and at campaign rallies.

The whispering is almost always about race, sex, illegitimate children--and homosexuality. What's particularly strange about all this is that the people actually elected often really do have these skeletons in their closet.

Beloved Sen. Strom Thurmond had an illegitimate black child, rumored for years, but finally proven only after he died. Thurmond's successor in the Senate--bachelor Lindsey Graham--has long been rumored to be gay. As are a couple other powerful state GOP figures.

Sometimes, SC voters will overlook these factors, despite the whispering, if they like the way a candidate handles the controversy (and if the other candidates are have competency issues). Nikki Haley may be benefitting from that. She's standing up to the accusations, while current Lt. Governor Andre Bauer is viewed by many as embarassingly erratic and incompetent (so much so that almost everyone preferred that the embarassing Gov. Mark Sanford stay in office rather than elevate Bauer).

SC Republicans are also completely willing to overlook in their candidates what they would never tolerate in a Democratic candidate. But then, the initial qualification for many GOP office holders in the Palmetto State is simply that they "aren't Democrats."

No matter how flawed the GOP's nominee for governor, she or he will still be the overwhelming favorite to win election in November. And you can bet that the campaign will be a dirty one!

Patti Prius, MPG Champ

Patti Prius, i.e., the Curmudgeon's 2009 Toyota Prius, has really come into her own recently. The Curmudgeon, like many Prius owners, obsessively follows his car's gas mileage because, hey, what else is there to brag about with the ugly little cars?

During warm months we usually get better than 50 mpg, but this last tank of gas set our personal record: 57.8 mpg. We went an incredible 609 miles between fill-ups, which is darn good for gas tank that holds about 11.5 gallons and usually costs less than $30 to fill.

Ok, you can now make fun of us!

UPDATE: On our next tank of gas, we got 58.3 mpg and 625 miles. That'll probably stand as our record for quite some time!

Capital Weather Gang on Landstrike

We greatly appreciate the generous plug for Landstrike today on Washingtonpost.com's Capital Weather Gang blog (our go-to source of authoritative information for the local weather scene).

See: Landstrike: New York's Horrible Hurricane Scenario

Would A Change In Government Favor Arlingtonians?

Some political activists in Arlington are out collecting signatures in the hope of putting an initiative on the November ballot to change the form of Arlington's government. Is this a good idea?

Currently, Arlington has the "County Manager" form of government. Under this form, an appointed (i.e., unelected) county manager is basically in charge of running the day-to-day business of the County. The manager is appointed by the County Board and is accountable to the County Board. As a practical matter, the County Board can override just about any decision of the manager.

Under the County Manager form, Arlington's five County Board members are all elected countywide on an "at-large" basis.

Proponents of a change in government form want to switch to the "County Board" form. Under this form (at least as being proposed in Arlington), there would be five County supervisers, four of whom would be elected in separate districts, and one at-large. The County Manager would be eliminated, but there would be a county administrator.

In considering whether this change in government form is good for Arlington, it's important to ask who is favoring the change and why. The initiative started with Arlington's public service employees unions, who have expressed frustration at having to deal with the County Manager, rather than directly with individual elected supervisors.

Well, that's strike one against a change--the unions are in this for their own selfish reasons, not for the good of the rest of us Arlingtonians. What the unions want to do is politicize personnel decisions in the County. Want to know what that's like. Just drive over to D.C.

After the unions got the ball rolling, two other significant groups jumped on the bandwagon: the Republican party and the Green party. Why? Both are hoping that with separate individual districts, instead of at-large elections, they can crack the complete Democratic stranglehold on the current County Board.

We've been looking to see if any of these proponents--unions, GOP, Greens (an unlikely alliance if ever there was one) can articulate strong reasons in favor of the change that have to do with the good governance of Arlington, as opposed to their selfish interests. So far, we've found none.

(Mind you, it's not like the Republicans or Greens are strong in certain parts of the County, but still shut out of office. In the past few election cycles, NO candidate from either party has as much as carried a precinct in Arlington.)

While we haven't yet heard a good argument in favor of the change, we can definitely think of some downsides.

First, the County Board form of government is more likely to pit different parts of the County against each other, and result in "pet" projects for Supervisors in their individual districts. Again, want to see this in action, cross the river to D.C.

Second, the County Board form means that the Supervisors are involved in day-to-day executive affairs. This is a bad formula anywhere. Corporations don't let their Boards perform executive functions; nor do non-profit organizations. Nor does the federal government. Not the state, either. Almost any organization functions better with a chief executive in place, so that routine decisions do not get lost in some form of gridlock or decision-making vacuum.

Having served on the Board of a non-profit during periods of executive transition, the Curmudgeon can say that boards are poorly organized to make executive decisions. It's very inefficient.

At least in D.C. there's a mayor to exercise executive authority. But in the County Board form, no one is in charge. Or, more precisely, every department head is in charge of his or her own fiefdom. In the County Manager form, department heads are hired by the Manager for their expertise; in the County Board form, many such department heads are political hacks, hired for patronage.

Indeed, it is precisely because of these inefficiencies in running a county government that the County Manager form was invented.

Finally, what's wrong with Arlington's government as it is? Sure, there are some problems, but Arlington has one of the best managed governments around. We have an AAA/aaa bond rating that saves taxpayers millions of dollars in interest on capital projects. We have had decades of smart, planned growth. By and large, we have a government that works and provides reasonable services to residents at a reasonable price.

It is true that the Democratic stranglehold on the County Board results in probably less diversity of views than would otherwise be the case. But, as we pointed out above, it's not like the GOP and Greens are winning some parts of the County. Democrats have fielded strong, conscientious candidates and have generally taken a moderate approach consistent with the vast majority of voters' views in Arlington.

As for the employee unions, thank goodness they're held in check!

So, we're always open to persuasion, but we'd need someone to tell us why a change in government form would be good for us--not good for their political interests.

How Cheap Computing Power Promises To Change The World

A few months ago we posted a series of pieces on the future after reading Raymond Kurzweil's "Singularity" book. One of the trends that Kurzweil, a self-appointed "futurist," has pointed to as having a major impact on accelerating technological change in the coming years is the continued decline in the price of computing power.

While we raised some questions about some of Kurzweil's projections (and others have raised bigger ones), we saw recent evidence that he's on point with respect to computing power.

In our most recent edition of Popular Science--the annual "Inventions of the Year" edition--two former invention award winners singled out the low cost of computing as driving ever more sophisticated inventions by garage and backyard tinkerers. One, Taber MacCullum (there's a good first name to appropriate for your next kid), in discussing the need for a better computer-human interface than the keyboard, said he was sure it would be invented soon: "[W]hat we're calling garage stuff now is what we were calling Bechtel Labs 10 years ago. Think of what can be done now--it's staggering."

The other inventor, Mike Howe, in predicting a practical vehicle that gets 200 mpg, said, "[r]ight now, there is the capability as a one- or two-man team to do the kind of innovation that has never been seen before. Five to 10 years ago, if you wanted computing power to do what the big boys did, you had to work for them, which meant you were constrained by inside-the-box thinking. Now we have the computing power, for a thousand or two thousand bucks, that they have."

Now, if one of these guys can just figure out how to cap a gushing oil pipe at 12,000 feet under the sea!

McDonnell Streamlines Restoration of Right Procedure

We'll join NLS in saluting Gov. McDonnell for streamlining the restoration of rights procedures in Virginia, whereby convicted felons can restore their voting rights. Here's scoop from NLS.

The contrast between McDonnell--who gets things done in a fairly low-key way, even if you don't always agree with him, and AG Ken Cuccinelli, who is a bloviating blast of hot political air, wasting taxpayer money on his personal political jihads, illustrates the difference between a "good government" conservative and a divisive conservative a-hole.

Everything But The Right Thing On Childhood Obesity

A lot of people, most notably First Lady Michelle Obama, are out there "doing something" about childhood obesity.

Or at least trying.

Most of it won't work, because it doesn't get at the root of our obesity epidemic. The First Lady's plan, called "Let's Move," has all kinds of ideas, many focused on getting kids off their butts and into healthy physical activity.

There's nothing wrong with getting kids to be physically active, as it will make them healthier. But it won't do much on the obesity front.

Obesity is a food problem, not an exercise problem. Some studies have even shown that more exercise simply makes people hungrier (but still healthier) and causes them to eat more.

As for the food problem, a lot of the suggestions you hear, including from Ms. Obama, are focused on "less sugar," or "more vegetables," or "less processed food," and "more natural food."

Those won't necessarily do the trick either.

For example, replacing those "bad" "sugary" sodas with "healthy" "natural" juice and milk may be counterproductive. Here's a quick quiz: which has more calories, an 8 ounce Coke Classic, glass of whole milk or glass of orange juice? Surprise! The milk has the most, with 150 calories, followed by the OJ at 110. The Coke: 97 calories.

The key to fighting obesity is LESS FOOD (or most accurately, fewer calories)! Today's portions--of EVERYTHING--are far too large for most people, especially children. Portions of practically every food--including "healthy" foods like salads (many of which are killers because they're so large) and even fruits (which have gotten bigger over the years thanks to selective breeding)--have grown over the past 40 years. Yet, there's no engineering change to the human body over that span that would allow humans to ingest considerably more calories without getting fat.

So, if you want to do something about obesity in children, you need to give them, and their parents, and educators in schools, some very clear guidance about how MUCH food they should be eating in any given meal or day. The advice has to be practical. The federal food pyramid suggests so many servings of fruits, veggies, grains and dairy, but you'd be hard pressed to figure out what is an appropriate SERVING SIZE for all those servings.

So, telling a kid to lay off the soda and drink milk or juice instead is probably only going to hurt. It would be much better to tell the child "you can have soda, but only this much [8 oz.--not a freaking Big Gulp!].

There's nothing wrong with a single patty hamburger accompanied by a small bag of fries and an 8 ounce drink for lunch or dinner for many kids. The problem is that you can't get that size meal at most of the places where you might reasonably go. The "small" "value" meal at Wendy's has a drink size and box of fries that would have been UNHEARD of at a fast food restaurant when the Curmudgeon was a kid. The large portion in the 1960's was smaller than today's "small" portion.

In contrast, get your child a salad at most sandwich shops and you'll get a lot more calories than the burger, fries and drink outlined above.

So, what about some programs aimed at portion control? Some commercials showing what a complete meal should be for kids of various ages; some governmental guidelines on what would constitute an appropriate portion of various popular kid's foods (french fries, drinks, hamburgers, pizza, chips, chicken nuggets, etc.); and some clear definitions of a serving size for all those servings on the government's pyramid (our bet, for example, is that most of today's giganto oranges in the supermarket are two serving sizes on the pyramid).

Virginia's Dumbass Government

During the past legislative term, Virginia's general assembly nearly unanimously passed legislation, sponsored by a Democrat, to exempt veterans charitable organizations from registration and disclosure requirements that apply to all other charities doing work in the Commonwealth. The Governor duly signed the bill and it became law.

Now, it turns out, the bill was proposed by lobbyists for a group called the U.S Navy Veterans Association, which is under investigation in several states, and whose mysterious director gave thousands of dollars to various Virginia candidates, including a whopping $55,000 to now Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Today's Washington Post has a story critical of the Cooch for keeping the money, while other candidates have given their contributions to legit vet charities.

But the Democrats critical of the Cooch ought to be criticizing themselves too. It was Democratic state senator Patsy Ticer who sponsored the bill, and apparently NO ONE thought this bill was a bad idea.

The fact is that the bill--now law--was a terrible idea, regardless of the bona fides of the lobbyists who proposed it. Why would anyone assume that just because someone is a veteran--or purports to represent the interests of veterans--they are more honest than the purveyors of other charities?

History is replete with charitable scams operated by and aimed at Vets. Yes, MOST veteran charities are legitimate and do great work. That's the whole point of requiring registration and disclosure--legit charities don't mind; the law deters scammers, and the public has a chance at separating out the good from the bad.

Meanwhile, the Cooch--who is busy persecuting climate scientists--has a huge conflict of interest. He ought to be investigating this U.S. Navy Veterans Association. But he's sitting on $55 Grand in campaign cash from the head of the group, and the Cooch's spokesperson says the Cooch would only give the money back (or give it away) if the guy who made the contribution "committed a crime."

Who's going to determine if he committed a crime? The Cooch!!

So, we're going to give a DUMBASS award to everyone in Virginia's government--the House, the Senate, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Governor and especially the Cooch.

We hope the general assembly will unanimously repeal this bad law next term.

McDonnell's Really Bad Toll Booth Idea

Bob McDonnell's latest idea for raising revenue while pretending not to "raise" "taxes": a toll plaza on I-95 just above the North Carolina border.

McDonnell has asked the federal government for permission to erect toll booths as far north as Fredericksburg on I-95, but for now Virginia's transportation secretary says "we're just contemplating one toll facility at the North Carolina border."

The state estimates it could raise $30-$60 million annually for roads--which really isn't that much--with a $2-$4 toll at the border. The obvious appeal is that many of the vehicles crossing the border are non-Virginians, so it's a way to tax out of staters.

We remember when I-95 had toll booths from Richmond (where there used to be four of them) to Boston. They are an enormous nuisance, costing drivers tens of thousands of lost hours sitting in toll lines. Today, between Richmond and New York (and maybe all the way up to Boston--we haven't been in awhile) there's only one toll--at the Delaware border. It causes huge traffic delays. There isn't a regular driver between Washington and NYC who hasn't wanted to blow the darn thing up many a time.

(Delaware could do a lot to make it's toll plaza more efficient, but they evidently don't give a damn.)

If Virginia gets permission to put a toll at the border, you can bet that NC, SC and GA will all want to follow suit. And you can bet that once one toll plaza goes up on I-95 in Virginia, the temptation to add more--all the way up to Fredericksburg--will grow. The federal government should just say no.

Tolls are an inefficient way to collect road taxes. (Make no mistake about it, tolls are taxes.) Not only do tolls booths interfere with traffic, especially on peak holiday weekends, but it costs money to build, maintain and staff them. So, a significant portion of toll revenue is wasted in the collection effort.

We already have an efficient system in place to collect taxes dedicated to road construction and maintenance: the gas tax. Raising that tax would impose minimal additional costs of collection because the system is already in place.

Of course, McDonnell and all the other Republicans have pledged not to raise "taxes," so they don't dare propose a hike that would simply keep that tax in line, as a proportion of gas prices, with where it started.

We have an easy solution to that problem, however, Mr. Governor: simply impose a gas toll.

Could Britain Inspire Our Congress?

The Brits have a hung Parliament. With European debt woes threatening a new round of economic chaos, the English left and right are seeing if they can find some common ground to form a governing coalition. It won't be easy, but at least they're talking about it.

Maybe we could do the same here. Recently, the Washington Post noted a rare outbreak of working bipartisanship in the Senate to get something done on financial regulatory reform.

Perhaps we could extend that spirit to true work on the deficit. In the U.S., both sides bear plenty of blame for the bulging, and ultimately unsustainable flood of red ink.

During the Clinton administration--with a Republican Congress--we made real progress on the deficit. By the time Clinton left office, we had had three consecutive years of balanced or surplus budgets. When W. Bush took office, the ten-year projected surplus was $5 trillion.

It didn't take Bush--and a mostly Republican Congress--long to squander those gains. By the time Bush left office, the cumulative deficit had instead ballooned by $5 trillion--a swing of $10 trillion from the surplus he inherited.

Faced with a potential economic catastrophe, Pres. Obama further expanded the deficit to unheard of record amounts.

Now, it's up to BOTH parties to show that they can govern the nation, not just snipe at each other about who is worse.

The ONLY WAY to seriously tackle the deficit the is to engage in true reform of the major entitlement programs--particularly social security and medicare. Pentagon spending needs to be reigned in as well, and the tax system needs a major overhaul. All these things could get done if the men and women in Congress would show a little maturity, put aside their bickering and figure out how to ignore the lobbyists and spread the pain around.

On the entitlements side, we need consensus that unrealistic retirement ages need to be raised, and some benefits trimmed.

On the tax side, if we erased most of the inequitable tax goodies won by business lobbyists over the years, we could actually lower overall tax rates and increase productivity. We would also, inadvertently, address the climate change issue--if we simply eliminated all the government subsidies for oil, gas and coal we would make a huge stride in having these fuels reflect their true costs.

Many other parts of the economy--notably housing and agriculture--are distorted by tax subsidies as well. Cleaning up the tax code would generate billions in new revenue, while actually lowering taxes for most Americans.

Sadly, we're not counting on any such breakout of maturity. It's much easier to point fingers than to take leadership on tough choices.

Kagan Pick For Supreme Court

Pres. Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court was pretty much expected.

Kagan is highly qualified, having served as Harvard Law School dean before becoming Solicitor General. She is undeniably whip smart, and politically keen.

The right will no doubt attack her as being too liberal (or just "liberal"). Yet, Kagan is no more liberal than Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are conservative.

Rest assured, there's no one Pres. Obama could reasonably appoint who wouldn't draw the right's scorn. They will attack the fact that she hasn't previously served as a judge, but if she had, they'd find some other reason to go after her. Some of our greatest Justices never served as judges, and many a judge has been a mediocre justice.

In any event, the highly politicized (on both sides) battle over confirmation will now begin, largely focused on everything but her true qualifications.