I'm back!

I'm back in SoCal! Well, actually I've been back since the 20th. But since I had half a day for a weekend and then a crazy work week, I'm considering this weekend my re-entry to california. I think this was the first trip I've ever taken where I got back and it took me a little bit to remember where everything is in my apartment (which is pretty crazy since it is not that big of an apartment).

The interesting thing about getting most of my "media" from iTunes TV and podcasts is coming back from a long trip I have a pile of stuff to watch and listen to. My knowledge of what's going on is almost caught back up with the present (I'm actually not that out of it thanks to nyt emails and TV in the hotels).

Since I'm now reliving the whole war spending bill stuff I'm doubly irritated. I realized that there had to be some level of compromise, but the assumption everyone seemed to make is that it was Congress that needed a bill to pass. If congress did not pass a war spending bill that would not mean that the troops would be underfunded. It would mean that Bush would have a choice to either bring them home or keep them there underfunded. It would be Bush who sent underfunded troops to Iraq. Now the cool thing is that if congress decided that it did not HAVE to fund the troops they would be in an incredible negotiating position and would eventually force Bush to sign a bill with time tables or at least benchmarks with real consequences. At that point the bill would pass and the troops would get funding. Actually, now that I think about it, it's really simple game theory. There was a round of signaling before they started playing. Bush sent the ultimate signal in game theory - I'm crazy and will stick to my guns no matter how irrational it might be. While he's crazy, congress knows he's not that crazy and would eventually cave somewhat (although he has done a good job of building up that image). But congress didn't match his signaling. If they would have said, we're not the ones keeping troops there. If troops suffer because of a lack of funding then it is Bush's fault, they would be on a level playing field. But instead they bought into the lie that if they don't fund the war that they are the ones causing harm to the troops. At that point they had already lost. Really I think the underlying issue is that congress thinks Americans are idiots (I'm not saying they are wrong) and can't see through Bush's lie that congress not funding the troops is what is putting them in harms way.