WIKILEAKS - A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOUNDER

1. Where the hell does anyone, much less some Australian brain-dead convicted hacker and college dropout dweeb named Julian Assange - whose picture is in every newspaper - get 400,000 classified documents?

2. Why is he still alive? Same question for those who leaked the documents to him.

Oh, don't act so shocked. The same questions have already occurred to you. And think a little deeper than the surface, obvious implications of those questions. Yeah, those two questions raise a whole lot of other questions. And, for you conspiracy theorists, intriguing possibilities.

And now a question for our Pentagon and our government in general: how in hell do you expect to get ANY informant help in any future conflict? There is going to be a blood bath of dead informants in both Iraq and Afghanistan from these leaked documents. Future candidate informants are going to ask us why should he / she risk his / her life when we have shown time and again that we are impotent to protect them or even our own classified documents. Would you trust us?

THE CASE AGAINST COMPROMISE

There are many reasons, in our daily lives, to make compromises. You can think of dozens for yourself, so your ostrich killer will skip pointing out the obvious. Instead, let's move to the political arena.

In the United States, we have a two-party system. This isn't by law, it's by default. The two parties differ widely in their views and principles. Your ostrich killer is about to make an argument that one party has a winning strategy in getting their agenda emplaced. That strategy is sometimes called 'incrementalism.'

Here's how it works: Party A wants radical legislation to, say, raise taxes dramatically. This is just an example, so please don't think I'm being specific here. Party B, though, wants no new taxes. Rancorous debate, name calling, and political extortion follow. Members of Party B, not wanting to be called names, and wishing to be reasonable, offers a counter proposal that raises taxes, but not as much. More name calling, more race or religion or class baiting goes on while Party A sticks to their original demands. Party B decides to offer a slightly better tax hike, but still far short of what Party A wants. Party A generously agrees, in the name of 'bipartisanship.' Taxes are raised an increment of what Party A originally called for.

Fast forward to a future legislative session. Party A renews its original demands. Party B goes through the same 'be reasonable and bipartisan and willing to compromise' hand-wringing soul searching, and finally agrees to raise taxes another increment.

Fast forward . . . Eventually Party A gets what it wanted in the first place, because Party B compromised enough times that they finally had nothing left to compromise about. So, in effect, Party A never actually compromised, they just stretched out their timeline to allow for incrementalism to work. And it always will, if one party sticks to its principles and the other is willing to compromise theirs.

Message to conservatives: If you recognize the above situation, you understand why we now have an entitlement mentality society, and a regime running the country the way Marx would if he were alive. So you (we) have a duty: reverse this incrementalism. Be the party of no compromise. That could cause legislative paralysis, which is something conservatives and most people prefer.