Editorial Bear

'Peace Mom's' decision to stand down from her anti-war crusade was marked by that statement, which she posted on her blog.

Both the right wing and left have concluded that it's about time. Sheehan's recent behaviour has been erratic, earning her a label as "anti-American" even amongst the liberal left who once supported her.

It's no great surprise, really. Cindy Sheehan isn't a politician. She's simply a grieving mother. A woman who lost a child and who found a target for her rage in George Bush.

It was the anti-war movement who adopted her and focused her grief. But at the end of the day, they couldn't control Cindy Sheehan any more than she could control America.

She shook hands with dictators and terrorists - and the militant left sidled quietly aside and distanced themselves from this wounded woman.

What they left behind was an exhausted, grief stricken woman.

When she ceased to be useful, she was abandoned by the movement that had thrust her into the public eye in the first place. She started off losing her son. Now she's lost her crusade. It adds a whole new layer of tragedy to an already heartbreaking story.

The right wing often see Cindy Sheehan as their enemy. They shouldn't. They should see her as a victim. The less scrupulous members of the anti-war movement simply scooped her up and now she's of no further use to them, they sent her home even more broken then she was before.

"It's up to you now." Article about Cindy Sheehan's retirement.

Aside from Simpson's NFL Pension and Florida Home, every penny 'The Juice' earns must be handed over in accordance with a 1997 court ruling, which found Simpson responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to their families in 'damages.'

It raises once again a very interesting issue regarding the O.J. Simpson case - and it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. It's simply how ethical it is for a CIVIL court to find a man guilty of a crime for which a CRIMINAL court exonerated him.

The logistics of it are easy to understand. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the defendant committed the crime. In a civil case, the jury simply has to decide which side they're on. That's why lawyers were able to get a 'guilty' verdict in the civil case whereas they couldn't in the criminal one.

But it does boggle my mind. I'd have thought, in a civil court case, the most overwhelming piece of evidence in Simpson's favour was that the US Criminal Courts had declared: "There is insufficient evidence to convict this man of this offence."

But the theory goes that a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal case is very different to being truly innocent. It means that the prosecution were simply not able to prove conclusively, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Simpson committed the crime. It doesn't mean he didn't do it.

It does make me wonder about the whole issue of double indemnity and the sheer craziness of America's litigation culture. We're lucky that the trend didn't catch on. Otherwise criminal cases might not be fought on physical evidence and witness testimony, but on heresay, rumour and clever legal wrangles. Criminals wouldn't do time or community service - they'd simply pay out settlements.

I'm not going to comment on whether Mr Simpson committed the crime or not. The fact is he was found 'not guilty' by the American legal system. In civilised society, that should have been the end of it.

Yahoo News: The Simpson Lawsuit.

I've been slung back and forth over the Atlantic. I've been fingerprinted and mugshotted. I've waited for hours at the US embassy for a five-minute dismissal and I've waited years to finally get permission to return.

But Tina and I did our time. We waited it out. We paid the thousands of dollars required to lawyers and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. And eventually - Oh, soooo EVENTUALLY - we got the green light to move back to the United States.

But right now, in Congress, the suits are debating some radical changes to the American Immigration System. And I don't like them ONE DAMN BIT.

It's an amnesty. There's no other way to describe it. If current legislation goes through, the nearly 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States will be granted a legitimate shot at citizenship.

And at the same time - MY GOD this annoys me - the restrictions regarding visas for family members and legitimate immigrants will be tightened.

It is the most cack-handed, backward lunacy I think of. Further proof that if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress must be congress.

It upsets me for myriad reasons, but most of all because it's a slap in our face. Tina and I obeyed the rules, we respected the system and we got racked through the meat-grinder. Yet millions of immigrants, who spat in the face of the immigration system and broke the law, are being granted everything it took Tina and I years to achieve.

It's not that I hate illegal immigrants. In fact I know a few. People who slipped through the BCIS net and wound up in the wrong pile of forms. Since they're married or related to American citizens, they're getting the squeeze in this new wave of immigration reforms. That doesn't seem fair.

It's actually the workers from Mexico who really win out. These are the ones who sneaked across the border in the company of 'Coyotes,' professional Mexican people smugglers. They came to America to work in farms or factories, for a staggering ten times what they'd earn back home.

You can't argue with their motivation for smuggling themselves to America - one in seven Mexican workers now comes illegally to the United States. However you can argue with the way they act while they're here.

The fact is, it's not easy being illegal. No bank account. No driver's licence. No medical care or insurance. And for the illegal workers, if you can't get it, you don't have it. This means there are literally millions of illegal immigrants driving clapped out, undisputed cars with no insurance. They rely on free medical care (paid for at the US taxpayer's expense.) And what money they do earn, they send an average of 30% of it out of the country back to Mexico.

With 15% of Mexico's working population currently working illegally in the United States, you can imagine what a drain on America's GDP that is.

What congress have to ask themselves, before they grant this fearsome demographic permission to work in the United States, is: Will anything will change when they do?

Will the newly legal immigrants scurry out to get bank accounts and car insurance? Will they chip in for health coverage? Or will they continue the way they've been going? Because the sad fact is, on an illegal immigrant's miserable basic wages, it's a lot cheaper to stay 'illegal' than pay for all the gubbins we law abiding US residents are required to.

It's madness, pure and simple. It's just more immigration insanity shoehorned in by the Bush government. After scrapping the tolerable Immigration and Naturalization Service and replacing it with the incompetent BCIS, the reigning government is attempting to secure a legacy (a non Iraq legacy) and tidy up their immigration mess with this ridiculous legislation.

It has only one saving grace. It Just Won't Work.

You see, in order to squeeze it past the more conservative members of Congress, the laws require heads of households to return to Mexico to await their immigration paperwork. The work permits illegal immigrants will be granted are temporary, requiring a year outside of the United States before they're renewed. Basically, immigrants will be REQUIRED to leave the USA before they can get on the road to citizenship. And none of them will.

For heads of households, the problem is a simple one. Sigfrido Villalta, an illegal worker in a car wash, says: "If I have to leave the country, how will my family here exist?"

For illegal workers already in the country, leaving the United States is simply not an option. Which means this offensive, incompetent piece of legislation will flop at the first fence. If the path to citizenship involves leaving America, the majority of immigrants won't take it - which means we'll be left with as many illegal immigrants AFTER the law has been passed as we had before.

Oh Tony, Tony, Tony Blair.
Don't ever think that we don't care.
You're shuffling off the centre stage,
Before you get to Thatcher's age.

(She was 65.)

Back in the nineties, we all knew,
The next PM, it would be you.
I wrote a story 'bout it too.
Although it didn't feature you.

Much.

Paul Daniels said: "He wins? I quit!"
But he's still here, the lying git.
But Tony, dude, that's long ago,
When ladies thought of you: "Tres beau."

"He's a bit of all right," they said.

And Britain's suffered no great loss.
In the decade since you've been boss,
You've aged a bit since then, old mate,
At least you haven't gained much weight.

Maybe a couple of pounds?

During your reign in Number 10,
Just five minutes from old Big Ben,
You've ruled the nation, true and fair,
And haven't quite lost ALL your hair.

Just a bit.

You introduced Minimum Wage,
In Northern Ireland, turned a page,
You helped Saddam come a cropper,
But told us all one big whopper...

About the WMD's.

America? They loved you, Blair
All tall and charming - with great hair!
They thought you charming, wise and bright,
Compared to George, by God they're right!

He didn't have Alastair Campbell, of course.

But now, dear Tony... Time to go,
It's time to end the Tony Show.
Your decade's up, you've had your day,
Now that git Brown is here to stay.

Depending on if he wins the leadership contest or not.

What will you do now, Mr Blair?
What use will be your coiffered hair?
Your open palms and tasteful ties,
And Ali Campbell's packs of lies?

'Alleged' packs of lies.

I'm sure a new career awaits,
You'd make a fortune in the States!
But do make sure your pension's safe,
Now Gordon Brown is on the case.

'Cos he'll nick it.

I think there's a bigger problem here, however.

Whether American troops are in Iraq rightly or wrongly, the country is in turmoil at the moment because of the actions of the US Government. If we yanked American and British troops out of the region, what would be left to fill the vacuum? Certainly not democracy.

Most likely, another fundamentalist Muslim regime. Insurgents and terrorists are already hard at work causing instability and unrest. Without American support, could the fledgling democratic government of Iraq survive?

It's doubtful - and if Darwin's theories are anything to go by, it'll be something tough, but ugly that ends up ruling the region. Can we afford to see another fundamentalist country pop up in the middle east, embittered and emboldened by America's inopportunely abandoned foreign policy?

I think both Democrats and Republicans have to think very long and very hard about their role in Iraq. Pulling out with the job half done might be far more dangerous than making the investment to help a true democracy emerge in the middle east.

But if that true democracy can be built - and that's a big if - it will be built on the bodies of young American soldiers. It's an impossible decision to make. Whether America decides to stay or go, the cost will be enormous.

Forget what the loony left or radical right tell you. America and Islam CAN find peace.

My friend Sarah, while on holiday in Marrakech, took this snap. Proof indeed that America and Islam can coexist peacefully. With a side order of fries and a Coca Cola.