e should monitor North Korea's soon to be second nuclear detonation with great vigilance, because I have it from an extremely unreliable source that the first headline-making explosion, did not actually occur as reported. The story has it that Chairman Kim Jong-il was able to compel all 30 million North Koreans to say "bang" at the same time.
We don't truly know what goes on in that society under its weird leadership. The highest level of contact that they have had with this country was when Madeline Albright paid a visit to Pyongy0ang in 2000. We don't have formal diplomatic relations and technically we remain at war, as the armistice declared at the end of the Korean War never resulted in a peace treaty.
Last Saturday the United Nations approved sanctions against North Korea, which most likely will not impel them to cancel or roll back their nuclear program. But, maybe they are eyeing other nations, such as Iran, hoping that by threatening their economies, they won't go nuclear. Much will depend on how effective the proposed sanctions imposed on North Korea turn out to be. A reminder of a time not too long ago; President Bush proclaimed that a North Korean bomb would not be tolerated. He now prefers stable business ties with China over tougher sanctions. That makes sense. And then there's neighbor South Korea. They haven't been too tough with their northern relatives because they surely don't want the North to collapse and force an unwanted reunification that would set back South Korea's economy for many years.

How would you answer this question: "Which of the following would you say should be the two most important national security priorities for the administration and Congress over the next few years?" The self -same question was recently posed by the former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg. The answer was, perhaps, surprising to many. In first place was "reducing dependence on foreign oil" (42%) and way back in second place "combating terrorism" (26%). In third place was "the war in Iraq". Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently quoted James Carville speaking as a Democrat saying "It can't just be that we are for a woman's right to choose, and education and energy independence... people should associate "energy security" with Democrats the way they associate "tax cuts" with Republicans. Carville who once, successfully, assured the candidates that "It's the economy, stupid," now is convinced (me too) that it's time for the Democrats to take over, if only they'll grasp what concerns the mass of voters.

We are likely soon to see another historic showdown between the courts, the Congress and the president. The issue; Mr. Bush's authorization of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It looks like triggering a whole lot of challenges asking judges to strike down the law as unconstitutional. The Act establishes rules for trying Al Qaeda suspects for war crimes before special military tribunals. It also narrows the protections of the Geneva Conventions available to detainees in the war on terror. There's a sharp divide at the Supreme Court, driven by a basic disagreement over the correct level of judicial oversight to protect individual liberties in the war on terror. The Christian Science Monitor put it this way, "Liberal justices seek more aggressive oversight protect individual liberties. Conservatives favor granting more deference and flexibility to the president/commander in chief during times of war. There'll be more.

Is there any doubt that California's action-hero-turned governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will be California's chief executive for a further four years? I don't think so. He has accomplished this by re-casting himself as a centrist. In the bluest of states in the nation, the reforminator has reformed himself... again. And you know something, the other guy has hardly run a campaign.