Several years ago, we came back from watching our son perform in a high school play.  When we got home, we found the kitchen floor flooded in half an inch of water.  The living room carpet was steadily soaking it up.  Water was pouring out of the dishwasher.

I immediately found the knob to turn off the water supply to the dishwasher to stop the flow.  We then used buckets to scoop out the water.  When we had gotten out all we could that way, we switched to towels and finally rented a carpet vacuum to clean the rest.  It was quite a job!

Anyone facing this situation would have done pretty much the same thing; the solution was obvious.  But when faced with the flood of illegal immigration, everyone seems to have forgotten the basics and are running around trying to figure out what to do with the water on the floor while the dishwasher is still pouring it out.

There is a joke where the optimist says "This is the best of all possible worlds" and the pessimist is afraid he is right.

So, how is the war in Iraq going?  Is it even proper to call it a war anymore?  Who are we at war with?  I know that Bush says terrorists, but how do you have a war against terrorists?  I guess it's pretty much the same as a war against poverty or a war against drugs.  How are they doing?  When will they end?  Who's going to win - so far poverty and drugs are ahead!

Leaving aside the abortion issue, and the war in Iraq for the moment.  I would like to address economics. In recent years, I've been thinking about zero-sum games.

In a zero-sum game, there is a fixed amount of goods to go around, if one person has more, then another person has less. In a non-zero-sum game, it is perfectly possible for everyone to have less, or everyone to have more, or a mix with the total amount of goods either more or less than at the beginning.