The town I work in, Waterloo, is the stage right now for the biggest immigration raid in the history of Iowa, as apparently immigrants working in Postville, approximately 80 miles north of Waterloo, are being detained under suspicions of identity theft and being here illegally.  Undoubtedly, this raid will be cheered by many in this state who are anxious for us to "get tough" on immigration.

How sad.  There is nothing to be cheering on here.  Families are getting broken up.  Young children will be left without parents to love and support them.  Men and women who are here because they found an opportunity in this state to provide a living for themselves and their families, people who are here to make a better life for themselves and their loved ones, are now seeing their lives shattered for having the audacity to follow their dreams.  Anyone who thinks this is worth cheering for is a sick son of a bitch.

Are there legitimate law breakers within the group being detained at the Cattle Congress?  I'm sure there are.  Just as there are law breakers amongst any other ethnic group in the state.  Undoubtedly though, for many of these people, their "crime" is trying to make a better life for their loved ones.  Whether the Tom Tancredos of the world want to admit it or not, there is a economic need for immigrants.  So why not create some sort of mechanism for them to come here and work, being able to provide financial stability for their families while at the same time providing much-needed labor to certain segments of our economy that sees needed jobs go unfulfilled.  It's a win-win for everyone involved.

I've received chain-letter e-mails from well-intentioned people about the drain illegal immigrants have on our public resources, particularly Social Security.  It would be foolish to argue the system is perfect.  There are definitely complexities in the system that need reform.  That said, a study shows that immigrants provide a net benefit of $20 billion to the public coffers.  Translation: they pay more into the system than they take.  If people are so concerned about the money we dole out in tax dollars, they should read economist Lant Prichett's book "Let Their People Come."  A study cited in this book shows that by increasing legal immigration by a mere 3%, the citizens of poor countries would gain $300 billion annually, which completely dwarfs the amount of money well-to-do countries send in foreign aid, thus would conceivably allow the money set aside for foreign aid to go to something else.

Another big argument anti-immigration people use is the supposed downward effect immigrants have on wages.  A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows immigrants actually have a positive impact on wages.  But the forces that shout about downward wages don't really give a damn about that.  Congressman Bruce Braley is interested in seeing charges brought against the Swift Company, revealing himself as a politician eager to get his greedy hands on money he didn't earn.  THAT is the true motive behind the Bruce Braleys and Tom Tancredos of the world.

The innocent children seeing their lives turned upside down deserve everyone's thoughts and prayers, as they now find themselves ensnared in a web that was not of their doing whatsoever.

There's a proposal in New York to mandate video cameras on police handguns.  New York has come under intense scrutiny for police shootings, and the rationale is that by recording when police have to use their guns, it will answer questions about whether fatal shootings were wrongful deaths or merited for self-defense.

I give this a qualified thumbs up.  Without question, we have seen just too damn many fatalities of both private citizens and police officers, many of which are fueled by the War on Drugs.  I recommend Reason magazine journalist Radley Balko's blog, whose work I've pimped on more than one occassion, for a documentation of "isolated incidents."  By requiring police officers and SWAT teams to record their work, we'd hopefully get answers once and for all as to the sort of tactics being employed during various raids and shootings, and whether law enforcement is acting within the law.

I say hopefully, because I'm afraid a law like this would eventually get watered down with so many exemptions as to make it practically impotent.  Plus, while law enforcement does get prosecuted for rogue behavior, that appears to be the exception more than it does the rule.  I'd also be curious if a judge would dismiss a case against a defendant accused of killing a cop because law enforcement didn't have their cameras on during the shooting.  Something tells me law enforcement would get the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Despite the concerns, I do think it is something strongly worth considering.  Anything that brings about accountability to law enforcement conduct is a benefit to citizens, and I would think to law enforcement as well, as it would erase doubts about police conduct when the police acted properly.  This isn't an end-all-be-all solution by any means, but it's definitely a start.

The latest edition of Cato's Letter prints a speech given by political humorist PJ O'Rourke.  Beyond the attempted humor, O'Rourke makes some excellent points about politics, points which reaffirm why I'm rarely enthused about the prospect of voting (and explains why I haven't voted for president since 1996 and find it very unlikely I'll do so this year).

Obama's big spiel this campaign is about changing, and bringing people together to solve our problems.  As O'Rourke says, "Trust me: we don't want politics to quit....Gridlock means government can't do things."  He compares bipartisanship to "my doctor and my lawyer agree(ing) with my wife that I need help."

All of these candidates plan to use the bully-pulpit of government power to tackle whatever pet issue they have.  All three of them speak out against corporate "greed" while demanding with a straight face that you place more of your money and freedom in their greedy little hands.  Hence why Congress is attacking the idea of controlling your own money.

This quote sums up O'Rourke's speech, and politics in general, perfectly: "The key ingredient of politics is the idea that all of society's ills can be cured politically.  It's like a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it."

Don't expect the Republican or Democratic nominee to be going on a diet this election cycle, either.

I originally found out about this on Reason's blog, a poll to determine the most overrated/underrated presidents in history.  Definitely a different twist on ranking presidents, as you usually hear of polls ranking the greatest or worst presidents of all-time.  My picks from each party:

*Most Overrated Democrat:  FDR.  The idea that he saved the economy is one of the biggest charades in US history.  It was the Federal Reserve that gave us the Great Depression, and FDR's New Deal helped prolong it.

*Most Overrated Republican:  Ronald Reagan.  I'll give Reagan credit for rejuvenating the economy.  Ex-Kremlin officials give Reagan credit for accelerating the demise of the Soviet Union.  But the man was not a deity, as many conservatives seemingly make him out to be.  His administration did break the law.  For many broken families, the Reagan legacy is his breaking down the barrier between the military and civilian law enforcement, and the resulting corruption and needless violence we've seen since then in the name of fighting the War on Drugs.

*Most Underrated Democrat:  Grover Cleveland.  He'd be a pariah in today's Democratic Party, as he opposed tariffs and foreign intervention.  Arguably the last true classically liberal president we've had in this country.

*Most Underrated Republican:  Calvin Coolidge.  Many like to point the finger of blame at Coolidge for the Great Depression.  But the economy was humming during Coolidge's time as President.  A lot of the tax cutting that happened under Coolidge, engineered by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, started when Mellon held the same position with President Harding.  Harding is very much maligned by history, and maybe deserves the "most underrated" title, but Harding himself said "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here."

One of the comments on the website running the poll is worth noting:  "Although Bush II is widely regarded as our worst President ever...he's even worse than that."

In "honor" of the recently aired 100th episode of ECW on the Sci-Fi Network, I thought I'd take a look at ECW as it once was, before Vince McMahon got a hold of it.  Wrestlepalooza '97 was one of the biggest ECW cards ever, taking place when ECW was still cutting-edge and hardcore wrestling wasn't featured regularly on WWF or WCW shows.  How does this hold up?  Lets find out.

*Joey Styles gives a rundown of the evening's festivities, with Rick Rude giving his thoughts, and passing a nice word onto ECW valet Francine.

*Shane Douglas vs. Chris Chetti:  Nothing special here.  Douglas gets the victory with his belly-to-belly suplex.

*The Full-Blooded Italians vs. The Pitbulls:  I always enjoyed watching good ol' boys Tracey Smothers and Tommy Rich try to pass themselves off as Italian.  The match itself was just there.  Pitbulls get the pinfall.

*The Dudley Boyz vs. Sandman & Balls Mahoney:  Typical ECW brawl in this one, with chairshots to the head, tables, and brawling through the crowd.  The DVD goes with the Motorhead cover of "Enter Sandman" instead using Metallica for Sandman's entrance music.  Dudleys get the victory.

*Terry Funk vs. Chris Candido:  Apparently Stevie Richards was supposed to wrestle Funk for the ECW Title here (and win it, depending on what source you read), but instead Richards gives an emotional speech about his career being in jeopardy, and he has to give up his title shot (the speech was done as a shoot, but Richards showed up in WCW a few weeks later with Raven).  So Candido gets the title match instead.  Funk gets the pinfall, but looks pretty awful in the process.  The fans weren't happy with that one, although Candido did nothing to impress me.

*Raven vs. Tommy Dreamer, Loser Leaves Town:  The fans know Raven is heading to WCW as a "You Sold Out" chant starts.  One of Raven's flunkies tells him to just leave, and Raven tries to walk out the door, but Tommy gets him, and the fight is on.  The two had arguably ECW's most noted feud, with Dreamer never able to beat Raven.  Apparently the two lobbied Paul Heyman to allow Raven to win their "last" match, but were overruled.  The match was highly regarded 11 years ago (probably because their was some doubt as to whether Dreamer would get the win, even with Raven heading to WCW), but this hasn't aged well.  In his autobiography, Terry Funk mentions how Raven avoids taking bumps.  Indeed, in this match, the risky spots involve Tommy Dreamer taking the bump.  These two have had better matches.  Dreamer finally gets his victory, but his triumph is short-lived.

*In one of ECW's most famous angles, Rob Van Dam (wearing a Monday Night Raw shirt, as he had been on Raw a month earlier), Sabu, and Jerry Lawler crash the ring, and take out Dreamer, and pretty much the entire ECW lockerroom.  While the angle has lost luster over the years since McMahon owns all of professional wrestling, this is still one of my all-time favorite moments as a wrestling fan.  Only Taz can stop the carnage, which segues into the next match.

*Taz vs. Sabu:  If Raven-Dreamer isn't the most noted feud in ECW history, then this one is.  This is a rematch from Barely Legal '97, ECW's first PPV.  I always found the Barely Legal match to be a major disappointment.  This match, however, is a lot of fun.  Sabu gets in a lot more high-spots in this one, and only fucks one spot up (which looked to be done on purpose).  Taz is at his ass-kicking peak, which unfortunately never got to see the light of day in the WWF.  Your enjoyment of this match will depend on whether you like the non-psychology spot-fest that Sabu always brings to the table.  For me, his matches are a guilty pleasure, so this was definitely the best match on the DVD.  Ending comes when Taz locks on the Tazmission, but Sabu flips on top of him for the pinfall.  This segues into the next match.

*Taz vs. Shane Douglas:  Taz is pissed, taking out all sorts of officials, and Douglas tells him to get out of the ring.  A bunch of jaw-jacking ensues, which results in this match, for Shane's TV Title, with the stipulation that if Taz can't make Douglas tap out in 3 minutes, he's gone from ECW for 60 days.  Taz gets the submission and the championship.

*The Dudley Boyz vs. The Eliminators:  By winning earlier in the night, the Dudleyz get a shot at the tag team titles, held by the Eliminators.  The match is noted for Perry Saturn, with his leg wrapped due to a legitimately torn ACL, still getting involved, executing a Cutter and a top rope elbow.  If not for Saturn, this match would be forgettable.  The Eliminators get the victory.

*The DVD includes brief profiles to the matches, but nothing else in the way of features, Easter eggs, etc.

Thoughts:  This DVD definitely highlights the good and bad of ECW under Paul Heyman.  In many ways, this card was a watershed moment for the promotion, because while this show produced a hot angle with the Lawler invasion, and closed the chapter on one of ECW's biggest storylines, it marked the exits of Raven, Richards, and Saturn (who showed up in WCW later in '97 as well).  This show was ECW at its creative peak, and while the promotion would continue on, they never really hit this kind of high-point ever again.  Wrestlers would get plucked from the promotion every time any one of them started to make a name for themselves.  Eventually Heyman's booking started to suffer as well, and by the time the doors were closed in 2001, ECW was a shell of its former self.

Another thing worth noting is just how bad a lot of these matches were.  It didn't occur to me as a teenager when I was marking out over ECW that a lot of these guys just couldn't wrestle, so they compensated their lack of wrestling skills with the obligatory chairs and tables.  And ECW oversaturated the wrestling scene with hardcore wrestling, which really exposes just how bad a lot of these matches are.

The one thing that stands out above all else though is the very strong possibility that ECW-style hardcore wrestling has strongly contributed to wrestling's body count over the last 10 years.  Pit Bull #2, Big Dick Dudley, Chris Candido, Louie Spicolli, and John Kronus all appear at some point in this DVD.  All of them are dead.  Is ECW entirely to blame for these deaths?  Of course not.  But only a fool would be unable to see a correlation.  For all the blame Vince McMahon gets for tarnishing the ECW legacy with his show on SciFi Network, he should be applauded for realizing that hardcore wrestling, as practiced a decade ago by ECW, no longer has a place in professional wrestling. 

The DVD for Wrestlepalooza '97 was produced by Pioneer Entertainment, before WWE bought ECW's video library.  It's still available for purchase, albeit at a steep price.  It's worth checking out if you want to see what ECW used to be like.  For the sake of the business, though, ECW's legacy will stay in the past.

The presidential aspirations of John Edwards must be spinning in their grave right now, as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have given interviews to the bane of the left, Fox News.

Clinton has done a two-part interview with "Bill Orally" with part 2 airing as I type this.  A couple interesting notes from part one of the interview.  In particular, Senator Clinton has a plan to implement a "gas tax holiday," which will be paid for by a windfall-profits tax.  Essentially, she's telling the oil companies that they can make only so much money, and anything over her baseline gets the crap taxed out of it.  While that sort of populist rhetoric might appeal to "the folks" that O'Reilly faux-champions, what a horrible idea.  When she says "the oil companies" will pay, what she means is we'll pay, as that tax will get passed on to us in the form of higher gas prices.  Then once the "tax holiday" is over, now we're back to paying the high gas prices, along with the gas tax, and paying a just a little more too thanks to the newly-installed windfall-profits tax.  Way to stand up for the middle class, Senator.  A very good analysis of the economics of gas prices is here.  However, sound analysis doesn't translate into votes, so expect more bashing of price-gouging oil companies.  Also of note from this interview, O'Reilly attacks the socialist component of her plans to raise income taxes on the wealthy.  Clinton doesn't like that comparison.  Nevermind that she's setting a baseline for what an acceptable amount of profit for a particular industry is (and what's to stop her from targeting other industries to her disliking), nevermind that her health care plans will MANDATE you have health insurance and mandate what type of coverage your provider offers (regardless of your preference), NAH, no socialist components to her agenda whatsoever.   

Apparently Obama's interview with Chris Wallace has the left-wing blogosphere in an uproar.  I can see why, particularly when he says that Republicans ideas about regulating business were better than the "top-down command and control" model of his party.  One could interpret that as a quasi-endorsement of Reaganomics, in light of Obama's quasi-praise for the Gipper.  But with his 5% rating from the National Taxpayers Union, I don't think Democrats need to worry about Obama abandoning the tax-and-spend creed of the Democratic Party anytime soon.

My latest article on AmericanChronicle.com is now up, giving my opinion on George W. Bush's legacy. 

First, a few must-read links:

Reason magazine's preeminent civil liberties journalist Radley Balko, whose work I've praised here previously, had a great article in last month's issue, now available online about an innocent family that got ensnared in the corrupt web of drug war enforcement, and the equally corrupt world of jailhouse snitching that is fueled by the drug war.  The basic gist of the article is that a federal prosecutor knew that the witnesses he was using to convict a family for a drug laundering operation had credibility problems (indeed, were outright lying), and he still persued his prosecution.  Thankfully, this family was eventually exonerated.

Next, another great (and even more disturbing) pair of articles from the brilliant Nat Hentoff (here & here) about German citizen Murat Kurnaz.  Kurnaz, who has no ties whatsoever to terrorism, was apprehended in Pakistan (the Pakistani government received a $3000 bounty for him from you and me), tortured at a black site, tortured him in Guantanamo, then held for over 3 years on continuously trumped-up charges even though US military intelligence cleared him of any terrorist connections.  While he is now free and back in Germany, and despite his INNOCENCE being proven, he is still labeled by our government as an enemy combatant.

Just what the hell is going on with our justice system?  How is it that we have an executive branch that has completely defecated on due process and rule of law??  How is it we have a legislative branch that has seemingly turned a blind eye to this attack on our rights?  And a judicial branch which unanimously affirms the erosion of due process??

Which begs the next question: Does this election even matter??  I seriously have my doubts.

Hillary Clinton is a proponent of executive power, having voted for the shameless power-grabs the Bush administration has received from Congress. 

John McCain's core political philosophy is one of authoritarianism.  Don't expect any assistance from him regarding the recklessness of the drug war or torture. 

Barack Obama is held up by many as the best hope for restoring the Constitution.  This despite the fact that he supported renewal of the PATRIOT Act (with some alleged reforms to it).  This despite the fact that when presented with opportunities to take a stand against warrantless wiretaps and torture, Senator Obama was AWOL.  This despite his waffling on the issue of marijuana decriminalization.  

The boogeyman used by both left- and right-wingers during presidential elections is the Supreme Court, and the likelihood of the President to nominate justices that hold extreme ideological views.  But with the Supreme Court unanimously voting, as in all 9 justices (left-leaning and right-leaning) voting, to allow evidence seized in an unlawful arrest to be used against someone, just how much does the "ideology" of justices really matter any more?

It's too bad all the excitement over this year's "historic" presidential campaign will likely result in complete irrelevance.

Politicians, particularly the left-wingers, like to lecture taxpayers about paying their fair share of taxes, blast the rich for being rich, and so on.  Minnesota candidate for the Senate, SNL comedian Al Franken, is one of those guys.  His first political book went hard after the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s.  So needless to say, he's not a fan of across-the-board tax cuts.  Apparently he's not concerned that his taxes would go up if the Bush tax cuts are repealed.

And why should he.  He won't pay them, anyway. 

So the next time Franken starts talking about taxes and repealing the tax cuts, remember he's talking about YOUR TAXES, not his.  He can't be bothered with such silly things while parading around on his middle class tour.  And don't bother him with having to pay worker's comp insurance, either.

**Disclaimer:  While I was given a free copy by the author, this book review has not been solicited.  I doubt the author even knows I have a blog.

When the debate arises among pro wrestling fans about the greatest of all-time, usually the debate focuses on Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Ricky Steamboat, and some others.  Old-school wrestling fans will include the likes of Jack Brisco, Lou Thesz, Bruno Sammartino, Harley Race, and some others.  Whoever is mentioned, usually that wrestler is someone who wrestled in worked matches (or pre-determined, or "fake" as the pro wrestling haters would say).  There was a time, however, when pro wrestling was a true competitive sport.  To find the true greatest pro wrestler of all-time, you need to look to the early 1900s.  A new book, "The Life and Legacy of Frank Gotch," gives a pretty persuasive argument that Frank Gotch, the world heavyweight champion from 1908 to 1915, deserves the recognition as the greatest ever.

The book gives an overview of his career.  It discusses his training under Farmer Burns and learning the catch-as-catch-can style of wrestling, with its focus of submission holds.  You also learn about his legendary rivalries with Tom Jenkins and George Hackenschmidt, the latter being the one Gotch won the championship from.  Gotch and Hackenschmidt had 2 matches, one in 1908 and one in 1911.  The 1911 match is considered controversial by many.  A Wikipedia article says that Gotch had a plant inside Hackenschmidt's training camp break George's leg.  Author Mike Chapman goes in length to debunk the story, explaining that while the leg was injured, it wasn't done by a plant, nor was the injury all that serious.

The best part of the book is where Chapman evaluates Gotch's legacy.  A very convincing case is made for Gotch's greatness over his peers.  Ed 'Strangler Lewis, considered by many experts the best ever from this era, is quoted as saying he himself was no Gotch.  Stanislaus Zbyszko, who wrestled many of the biggest names during a career spanning 5 decades, also believed Gotch to be the greatest ever. 

The book also contains many rare photos, including pictures taken with former heavyweight boxing champions, rare advertising that used Gotch to promote products, and posed training sessions where Gotch demonstrates his famous toe hold.

If there's any disappointment to the book, it's that it is a short read.  That said, Chapman has done a lot of research on his subject which comes through in this book.  Gotch wrestled in a much different era than today's "sports entertainment" era of wrestling, back when pro wrestling was a legitimate sport, and the competitors were very hard men.  It's hard to argue that anyone was harder than Humboldt, Iowa's very own Frank Gotch.

While not a 500-page epic like Bret Hart's tome, this book is a historical look into what pro wrestling once was.  Strongly recommended for any wrestling fan.

The book is available here.