President Bush has finally started racking up vetoes. His third veto was for a bill to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. During the ceremony he mentioned a bill that he would have signed, if Congress bothered to pass it. This sounds familiar. Congress once tried raising the minimum wage, and Bush mentioned a bill that he could support that would also raise the minimum wage. In both cases, Congress wanted to make a point when it could have tried to make a difference.

[Jimmy] Carter said the consensus of the U.S., Israel and the EU to start funneling aid to Abbas' new government in the West Bank but continue blocking Hamas in the Gaza Strip represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."

Because Hamas gunmen killing Fatah officials doesn't really divide anyone.

For the record, I am OK with the compromise bill on immigration. It's not exactly what I'd like, but it's the best I think we can expect.

However, I would like to consider the claim that immigration reform must include a pathway to citizenship, or some way to normalize the millions of people illegally in the country. It's hogwash. Again, for the record, I'm fine if we do provide a pathway to citizenship; I'm just pointing out that such a pathway is not necessary.

Or, more accurately, a special pathway is not necessary. There is already a pathway to citizenship for most anyone who lives on the planet. You go through INS. However, that pathway takes something like five years and costs a few thousand dollars. To be honest, if I were faced with that mountain of paperwork and hopelessness, I'd sneak in, too.

But what if "immigration reform" included reforming that pathway? What if the steps were changed for everyone? What if Congress hired enough people to handle the paperwork so that anybody could legitimately have a green card six months after filing paperwork in their home country? I have a strong hunch that such reform (coupled with much stronger border enforcement, employment raids, and similar "cut off demand" measures) would result in those 12 million-or-so illegals finding a way to naturalize themselves -- mainly by going to the back of the line, and coming in through legitimate channels.

Before I forget again, here are a couple of day-old (or week-old) posts.

Recently Russia stepped up opposition to an anti-ballistic missile base in the Czech Republic. I couldn't stop laughing when the "All Bush All the Time" crowd worked through incredible mental contortions to blame Bush for everything bad about Eastern Europe. By putting a defensive line in Eastern Europe, he was destabalizing politics in the region.

Although the official purpose of the defensive shield is to protect against regional missiles from Iran (which it has already purchased from North Korea), Russia's opposition was that the shield could also stop Russian missiles fired on former puppet states.

And the "All Bush All the Time" crowd was incensed that Bush would do anything to keep Russia from firing missiles on the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, the Balkans, or anywhere else. I really can't figure out why. Apparently Russia has a clear right to affect poolitics by threatening missile strikes -- especially nuclear missile strikes.

Does America have the same right? Is it OK for the US to affect politics in our region by threatening missile strikes? Mexico would find a way to police its border if the alternative were a mushroom cloud over Mexico City. I'm not seriously suggesting that we go to this level of brinksmanship, but I'm amazed that anyone would defend Russia's ability to engage in such politics.