I see a difference between foreign terrorists and Iraqi insurgents.  While I have trouble saying "give them amnesty," it appears only fair.  I think of the American Revolution, but if the French decided to stay around and occupy.  And destroy our infrastructure, economy, and kill tens of thousands of us as collateral damage.

In other words, I sympathize with those who feel cheated, and have struggled to raise their families.  To end the cycle of hate, I think amnesty for Iraqis is the only way to do that.  It will help everyone to move on, and give less incentive for hostility against hopefully reduced amounts of Americans still in Iraq.  Foreign terrorists, on the other hand, should get justice by serving time in prison.  I'd love to hear other people's thoughts, too.

As long as US troops are present in Iraq, amnesty for anyone who harms or threatens to harm those troops is premature.  Besides, sovereignty as it is defined by the West has not been attained, and one only has to note the presence of US troops to note that such sovereignty has not been accepted by the United States.  Allowing Iraq to grant amnesty to insurgents also conflicts with our policy at Guantanomo Bay.  For if we will indefinitely detain those we call "terrorists," who are now the "insurgents" in Iraq, stating that they fight under no flag, then Iraq's recognition of them by granting them amnesty requires us to release these prisoners.  In other words, I am trying to highlight the highly scabrous nature of amnesty as it relates to our foreign policy and our definitions of sovereignty.  Until all three are resolved, our relations to Iraq and to the war in that country will be mired in many contradictions.  This will only be resolved if we decide to withdraw, formally recognize Iraq as a sovereign nation with its own army and its own institutions of government and then release prisoners who are then recognized by a government we view as sovereign.  Until this is systematically sorted and considered in an orderly manner, we will continue to be mired in a conflict that will become increasingly unintelligible.  This is why I vote no in the above survey.

Yes, the officiating has been horrible at this World Cup.  Very sad.  The Portugal/Holland game was the most ridiculous I've ever seen.  I didn't think I'd be saying that so quickly after the US/Italy game.  And that doesn't even address the three-yellow-card game.

Regarding that TX House race - who commissioned the poll? The Agonist doesn't say.

Unfortunately, I think we can see the RW court shaping up based on the decisions that came out today.  Roberts and Alito have been RW Rubber Stamps along with those morons Scalia and the inept Thomas.  Hopefully Kennedy doesn't change and R v W isn't overturned by the end of this year, beginning of next.  DAMN YOU OCONNOR FOR RETIRING.  FIRST YOU SCREWED GORE... NOW THIS!!!

I disagree. Not all the refs suck. there have been some excellent games.  While yesterday, the ref lost control of the Netherlands / Portugal game, the England game was actually quite good and Ecuador surprised me (and everyone)... and the officiating wasn't that bad.  I thought their goalie was quite inspiring, and I watched all of their first-round games, and didn't find anything wrong with them.  Japan versus Brazil? AWESOME game... even "fatty" got some goals, and the ref wasn't calling the "dives" and just let the boys play. The Ivory Coast games? First two were very good, and it was a joy to watch those guys... great story.  So if you focus on the lackluster (a.k.a. SHITTY) performance of the united states and a couple of poorly officiated matches... then yes, the world cup sucks... but there are a hell of a lot of good games out there.  I recommend watching the cup on Univision.  I can speak Spanish but can't follow most of the commentary.  I can't STAND the commentary on ABC and on ESPN.  Thos guys repeat themselves over and over and over, don't focus on the game, and aren't as excited when real shit's happening on the field as the Spanish-speaking announcers.  So... go to Univision, tune out the announcers, find a couple of more teams to root for (I like England, even though they're squeaking by... and I like "fatty" with Brazil... mainly because people are making fun of him).

As for Texas REpublicans... I can't wait to get to Texas and vote for John Courage.  I'm moving into his district in 2 months.

NCDem

No doubt bloggers too need to earn a living and if they can generate revenues as political consultants, then why not. K Street and the Repub consultant machine has run the current administration. The DC Dem consultant base have earned handsome rewards while providing no successes yet the DC Dem establishment keeps paying these guys.

Despite the Jerome and Kos brouhaha swirling on the "pay-to-play" meme, I wonder how the liberal blogosphere will develop as the promoters of the leading sites become political consultants. Will they go the way of other political consultants beholden to their paymasters or maintain their integrity? This is a tough choice when dollar signs are everywhere.

Another question that I have is are the main liberal political sites dependent on their promoters as anchors or will the community drift to other sites if a sites promoter can't draw the fine line between real opinion and sponsored opinion?