Bush, Big Oil bleeding US dry.

Record profits.

That’s what big oil corporations have reaped during an economic period that has left millions of Americans bankrupt, underemployed and without health coverage. Since 2001, big oil companies have exploited every angle from war to tropical storms in an effort to charge increasingly high prices for fuel.

The American people share part of the blame. Our refusal to practice conservation and demand better fuel economy resulted in a dangerous dependence on oil, but much of the blame for rising fuel costs falls on the Bush administration and key members of the Republican party who are in the back pocket of big oil and other corporations.

Bush has used the high fuel prices to create a nationwide hysteria over foreign oil. Legislation has been proposed and passed that has drastically reduced environmental protection regulations and big oil has its sights set on our national parks, forests and wildlife refuges as potential oil fields.

In spite of all of the spin, the fact is big oil is taking advantage of cronyism to pad its pockets while it can. The technology that can but big oil out of business can no longer be restrained and the future brings the promise of fuel cells, renewable combustion fuel sources and dramatically increased fuel economy. Concern over emissions, dwindling oil reserves and global participation in the quest for better energy technology is chipping away at the economic foundation companies like Exxon, Marathon, and BP have built over the past 100 years.

The Bush administration has not been very aggressive in promoting conservation initiatives. Sure, they’ve paid some lip service to certain talking points that sound good, but nothing has been done to mandate improved fuel economy. Nothing has been done to prepare this country to make a transition from fossil fuel dependence to agricultural alternatives. The truth is, the Bush administration has effectively made us even more dependent on oil.

The results have been detrimental. American automotive giants, Ford and Chevy are in the process of cutting tens of thousands of jobs amidst massive revenue shortfalls, while Honda has seen impressive growth. Why? Fuel economy. While Chevy and Ford were racing to build a bigger pickup, Honda kept it’s eye on improved fuel economy. When the gas prices went up, buyers walked away from monstrous trucks and purchased smaller cars.

It’s no secret that the global reserves of oil are finite. One of the reasons there is so much unrest in the Middle East is because oil fields are becoming less productive. The combination of religious fundamentalism and illiteracy are major components of the chronic instability, but there is a sense of urgency among the people in power that compels leaders to fortify their positions in the coming years. Religion is simply a means of obfuscation. Oil will begin to run out and the only bargaining chip that anybody in the Middle East will have is power. That explains the desire for weapons of mass destruction

Since taking office Bush has demonstrated considerable favoritism toward industrial interests, particularly big oil. His refusal to impose a windfall tax on the massive profits reaped by oil companies demonstrates his painfully obvious bias. While it is easy to make the argument that it defies the spirit of capitalism to impose such a tax on a profitable business, the nature of the oil industry is a special case. The future of this country depends on solvent energy supplies. Oil companies have conspired with each other to set prices, with the government to maintain energy dependence on oil and with other businesses to ensure an unhealthy addiction to oil. The government isn’t suspending capitalism, big oil has long abandoned the spirit of a free market.

It is up to our elected leaders to balance the needs of the present with those of future generations. By failing to take a proactive stance on oil, Bush has allowed our country to reach the precipice of systemic economic collapse. Because we are not aggressively implementing renewable energy alternatives, our immediate and long term future is in jeopardy. Bush is to blame.

Dixie Chicks Redux

A couple of years ago Natalie Maines started a fire storm in country music when she made her feelings about George W. Bush public on stage at a London concert. Redneck myopia prevailed and the Dixie Chicks became pariahs within their defined niche of country music. Stores pulled their records, radio stations stopped playing their songs and country music morons like Toby Keith piled on and reaped huge profits by exploiting the pseudo patriotic sub-genre that was setting the country charts afire.

After apologizing for choosing such a strongly worded condemnation of George W. Bush and expressing her concerns overseas, Natalie made it clear that she was not a Bush supporter and refused to back down from her statements. Her only regret was being disrespectful. Clarifying that point only made matters worse. The girls fired back at other performers, but eventually they disappeared from view and remained largely forgotten. They performed a few benefits and released a few stray songs, but for the most part they seemed to be on their way out.

Until now. The Chicks have returned with a powerful single Not Ready to make Nice from their latest album Taking the Long Way. The song is a departure from their bluegrass roots, embracing complex the complex musical arrangements of a pop power ballad. It's a sweeping musical score that revisits the political controversy and addresses critics with blunt indignation. Natalie makes it clear that she sees no reason to apologize for speaking her mind. The song conveys the pain the Dixie Chicks endured in receiving death threats from angry anti-fans.

I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don'’t mind sayin’
It's a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they'd write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

While American Country Music stations aren't embracing the song just yet, it is a hit on Canadian stations and has piqued the interests of American pop music fans. The video has appeared on VH-1 and will eventually claw its way into the V-Spot Top 20 countdown. The Dixie Chicks enjoyed a little crossover success when they covered Stevie Nicks' Landslide, and it would appear that Not Ready to Make Nice has been engineered to appeal to the much broader and more accepting pop audience. Maines has softened her twangy trailer park drawl and replaced it with a folksy vocal delivery that has country roots without being trashy. It's clear that the Dixie Chicks are ready to explore a new market for their music.

Some purists will knock them for cleaning up their image and catering to the pop market. Many will claim that this proves how wrong the Dixie Chicks were for taking an anti-war stance, but with pop artists typically doubling or tripling the sales of country performers is it really an example of a group hiding from their past or is it more likely an example of three women simply out growing a petty audience? Is it selling out, or moving up?

Regardless, the Dixie Chicks have struck back. Not Ready to Make Nice is a fantastic song with a powerful message. It has lyrical and musical depth. Even if Country fans aren't ready to accept the Dixie Chicks for speaking their minds, the pop charts will provide wide open spaces for these girls to make it big. Rednecks might have enjoyed a good chuckle when they were gleefully bulldozing stacks of Dixie Chicks records, but Natalie Maines and the girls will be having the last laugh.

Cynthia McKinney guilty of crimes she won't be charged with

Cynthia McKinney should be ashamed of herself. As a black woman she should know what racism is and as a U.S. Representative to Congress it should be her mission to eliminate it. Instead, Cynthia chooses to make it worse. You see, instead of addressing the issue of racism as it applies to the black community, Cynthia wants to draw attention to the racism she believes affects her in her daily life as a career politician.

Racial discrimination is a serious issue in this country, perhaps more serious now than it has ever been. The reason is because too many people want to believe that racism is no longer an issue. Slaves have been emancipated, amendments have been passed and laws have been enforced so there is no longer a legal host in which racism can fester, but it is still there in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans and the only thing that will remove it is time.

Of course time alone is meaningless. While the latent racism that remains still holds people of color back, the legal structure that is in place allows those who are willing to work a little harder an opportunity to overcome it. By achieving success and setting a positive example they can show other people of color that it is not impossible to beat racism, while giving the bigots out there less of a reason to cling to their ignorance.

The along comes an imbecile like Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia is not a black woman who pulled herself out of the ghetto in hopes of one day making the world a better place. She's a spoiled rich girl who got started in politics because her daddy put submitted her name as a write in candidate on a 1986 ballot for the Georgia state house. She's a career politician.

In 1992 Cynthia McKinney won her spot in the U.S. House of Representatives and immediately Cynthia decided to start trouble. In 1993 she had an altercation with a Capitol Police Officer which prompted the department to post her picture with all officers since Cynthia opted to not wear her security pin. Interestingly enough, this same issue is what led to the recent altercation.

Contributing to the problem is Cynthia's decision to change her hairdo from her trademark corn rows to a rather wild 'fro. It's a good look, but it certainly does alter her appearance. Her face is framed differently and she looks a little thinner-- even younger because her hair has a carefree look to it. And since Cynthia is a woman, she knows all too well that a change in hair style can completely change a woman's entire look. Most women count on it. So she should have expected a little confusion.

Cynthia initially claimed she was inappropriately touched, but after she realized that nobody was jumping on her bandwagon, she backed off and subsequently offered a carefully crafted apology. On one hand it looks like she is admitting that she was wrong, but it's vague enough that it can't be used against her in a court of law. She might be charged with assaulting an officer, which would seem a bit severe given the fact that the officer was not harmed. Cynthia's outburst was a tamer version of Zsa Zsa Gabor's incident where the aged actress slapped a cop for pulling her over. Cynthia is a spoiled brat who likes to be the center of attention. We get it.

Unfortunately Cynthia doesn't get it. As a black woman who has pursued public service, McKinney should have better judgment than that. There's more at stake than her ego. She's educated, having graduated from USC and attended the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy... Diplomacy? We didn't see any diplomacy in action during this whole ordeal, did we? In fact, McKinney displayed very little diplomacy or decorum at all. Even if she had a reason to be upset, there was a better way to express it.

If there was a situation with racial profiling that needed to be addressed, Cynthia knew that there were other means available that would have been more effective than a tantrum. She's a powerful woman with considerable resources. If that cop was guilty of racial discrimination she could have had him working third shift security at an Alexandria Burger King. But Cynthia's issue was not one of racism, it was one of ego. As a Representative she expects royal treatment. This wasn't a black thing. It was a diva thing.

The frustrating point in all of this is the damage McKinney did to the struggle against racism. By laying down that race card to defend her selfish actions, McKinney made future claims of racial discrimination a little less significant. Every time that race card is played out of turn, it makes the next problem that much harder to draw attention to. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have both suffered tremendous blows to their credibility for rallying to the wrong cause. Did you notice how neither of them wanted anything to do with McKinney? They know crap when they see it.

Cynthia McKinney already has a team of lawyers ready to handle anything that comes her way as a result of this. If criminal charges are filed, she'll have a pile of briefs and motions ready to have the case dismissed. If the cop files a civil suit, they'll have so much dirt on him he'll drop the claim. Chances are Cynthia McKinney will walk away from this with a slap on the wrist and a paltry fine. Given the details of the case, it's hard to expect much more. At least from a legal perspective.

Cynthia McKinney doesn't deserve to be in Congress, but only the voters in her district can do anything about that. Hopefully they're as disgusted over Cynthia's behavior as the rest of the country is and they do the right thing when Cynthia's seat is back on the block. Even if Cynthia can convince them that she was challenging an issue, there was a better way to do it. Instead of demonstrating intelligence, wisdom and a little diplomacy, McKinney went ballistic and made an ass of herself and by extension made fools of everybody in her district.

Republicans display a dangerous sense of arrogance

James Sensenbrenner's hotly contested immigration bill is only the latest in a long line of public displays of conservative bitterness. Like spoiled children being asked to share for the first time Republicans debate through tantrum and pass one-sided legislation without engaging in anything resembling diplomacy.

There's no doubt that illegal immigration is an issue that this country needs to address. With jobs being outsourced at an alarming pace, big corporations threatening to cut thousands of jobs over the next few years and the cost of education rocketing upward, it only makes sense to ensure that the dwindling employment opportunities are preserved for U.S. Citizens. The fact is illegal immigration artificially keeps wages down and has effectively created a serf class of laborers in this country who are willing to accept an appallingly low standard of living.

Unfortunately there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing it. The right way would include reaching out to the Hispanic community and drafting an amicable resolution. The ham-handed manner in which Sensenbrenner attacked the issue galvanized the Hispanic community and has once again polarized this country.

But this is nothing new. Back in June of 2005, Sensenbrenner threw a tantrum during a meeting where Democrats and Republicans were discussing the Patriot Act. When the judiciary Democrats brought up issues concerning the Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay, Sensenbrenner halted the meeting and ordered the court reporter out of the room and then shut off the C-Span cameras.

This sort of behavior has become typical of the Republican Party. This my way or the highway attitude might have started with the conservative pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, but it has permeated through the rest of the party. Even moderate Republicans who meekly question the uber-conservative wing of the party are thrown under the bus and characterized as RINO's.

The previous two presidential elections were close contests and the final results of each remain questionable. What sets the past two elections apart, however, is not the margin of victory or the controversies surrounding them, but how bitterly divided the two sides were. The Republican Party is not enjoying a mandate, but rather a very narrow advantage in a hostile political climate. One would think that such a bitter divide would call for the party in power to reach across the aisle and try to find a little common ground, but that has not been the case. In fact, the opposite is true. Instead of seeking middle ground and engaging in some healthy diplomacy, the Republican party has embraced the totalitarian concepts espoused by the far right. Republicans only see things in black and white. There's simply no compromise on any issue.

Recently, Republicans have embraced religious zealots who seek to impose Christian theocracy on the country through the passage of laws that violate basic civil rights. The party refuses to distance itself from pundits who spread a message of hatred and intolerance. When Bill Bennett aired a hypothetical commentary about how aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate, Republicans dismissed it as an unfortunate remark. When Rush Limbaugh spouts his own version of encoded bigotry, nothing is done to distance the party from it.

The fact is that the Republican Party is the white man's party. They assumed that position in the 1960's when Democrats alienated their Southern constituents with the passage of Civil Rights legislation. Seeing an opportunity to steal votes, the Republican Party retooled itself as the party of the god-fearing white Christian.

Republicans take the simple argument on every issue. Everything is a 101 level class. The Economy, Sociology, Foreign Relations. In the Republican world it is all 101. Unfortunately life is a little more complex than the 101 class. In fact, that's why colleges offer such a variety of advanced classes in each curriculum.

This over-simplified view of reality is exactly why things are such a mess right now. The war in Iraq is the direct result of applying 101 logic to a 301 situation. Republicans are quick to accuse the UN of failing, but as a permanent member of the Security Council aren't we to blame? The fact is the UN only works if the US allows it to. When Bush went to the UN with a proposal for war the UN balked. So Bush threw a tantrum, called the UN names and started a war anyway. Who failed whom?

Internally, the massive protests over the immigration bill is the result of Sensenbrenner's failure to reach out to the Hispanic community. His bill has stirred up a vocal minority of angry white people who have turned the immigration bill into a racial epithet, screaming for those who embrace their Mexican heritage to pack up and leave. Has the Republican Party tried to distance themselves from this? No. They encourage it.

Michelle Malkin recently accused the Hispanic demonstrators of being racist. This observation was gleaned from the fact that many of the demonstrators are waving Mexican flags and chanting "Brown Power." Sadly Malkin, like most conservatives, just doesn't grasp what racism really is. Showing a little ethnic pride is not racist. Nobody accused the Irish of being racist when they marched around the country a few weeks ago to celebrate Saint Patrick's day. They had Irish flags and chanted slogans as well.

Racism is when you discriminate against somebody because of their race. A Racist might take pride in his or her heritage but what makes them a true racist is the desire to place their race in a position of superiority. That's the difference between "brown power" and "white power." Unfortunately people like Michelle Malkin and most of the Republicans in congress are smart enough to recognize that. They just choose to be obtuse because it's easier to embrace the simplicity of being wrong. You can't reason with them because they choose to abandon reason.

Michelle Malkin: Village idiot...

Ah yes, Michelle Malkin piled onto the story of a little black girl who expresses her father's racially motivated rage. Autum Ashante's poem White Nationalism Put U in Bondage compares Christopher Columbus and Charles Darwin to vampires who sucked the blood out of black people. The poem express disgust at the way whites have addressed and continue to handle race in our country. While I don't agree with the message, I can't argue the fact that whites have inflicted a lot of harm on people of color and I can't be surprised if once in a while people in certain minorities are inclined to hate whites.

It's sad that Autum's father has raised her in this culture of hatred but what is even more tragic is the fact that idiots like Michelle Malkin seem to think that this one girl's poem is the result of social programs designed to help black people attain some success in our society. Malkin goes on in her March 15th column to complain about affirmative action and cultural sensitivity:

"Who is surprised? If you set aside a separate holiday for Black History Month in the public schools, if you set aside separate graduation ceremonies, college dorms, academic departments, recruiting programs, and government contracts and subcontracts by race, you send a message that hard-core racial separatism is not only acceptable -- but desired.

Autum Ashante' is the natural offspring of militant multiculturalism and government-sanctioned identity politics. We reap what we sow."

So in Michelle's world it would appear that we could have achieved racial harmony if Abe Lincoln would have just stayed out of slavery and minded his own business. And here I thought that people like Autum's father were angry over things like racist cops and a clear bias against blacks in our criminal justice system.

The poem has been denounced, by people like Michelle Malkin, as racist. However, I didn't pick up on racial undertones in this poem, I simply saw a different perspective:

White Nationalism Put U In Bondage

White nationalism is what put you in bondage
Pirate and vampires like Columbus, Morgan, and Darwin
Drank the blood of the sheep, trampled all over them with
Steel, tricks and deceit.
Nothing has changed take a look in our streets
The mis-education of she and Hegro — leaves you on your knee2grow
Black lands taken from your hands, by vampires with no remorse
They took the gold, the wisdom and all of the storytellers
They took the black women, with the black man weak
Made to watch as they changed the paradigm
Of our village
They killed the blind, they killed the lazy, they went
So far as to kill the unborn baby
Yeah White nationalism is what put you in bondage
Pirates and vampires like Columbus, Morgan, and Darwin
They drank the blood of the sheep, trampled all over them with
Steel laden feet, throw in the tricks alcohol and deceit.
Nothing has changed take a look at our streets.

Where's the smoking gun, Michelle? This is the poem that stirred up a hornets nest but I don't see a call to arms. What I read is a lot of pent up frustration with centuries of racial injustice. This is not the racist anthem it has been made out to be. It's simply a matter of white people not liking the message. Perhaps the guilt is a little thick.

It's interesting, I searched Michelle's archives and I never saw her stop to write an article about Lamb and Lynx Gaede. The twin sisters are better known as the musical duo Prussian Blue, a white nationalist band that specializes in charming Neo-Nazi rally music. The name refers to claims made by holocaust deniers alleging that the levels of Prussian Blue in the walls of gas chambers proves that they were not used to exterminate Jews. How's that for endearing?

The girls and their supporters claim that they don't sing about hate, but rather promote a message of racial pride but their song Victory Day clearly speaks of ethnic cleansing and refers to a bloody purging. Perhaps that's just a metaphor. Other songs feature similar lyrics. These girls even celebrate Adolph Hitler as a hero, wearing shirts adorned with a smiling caricature of the wayward dictator. The man was misunderstood!

Michelle Malkin actually did refer to the Aryan duo in her article lamenting the outburst of the seven year-old Autum Ashante. Michelle wondered if the media (read liberals) would be as outraged over Autum as they were over Prussian Blue. The answer is probably not.

The reason is simple, Autum Ashante doesn't represent a strong organized movement that endorses genocidal slaughter. Autum's poem expresses her father's frustration with racial prejudice and social injustice. It's misguided and unfortunate but Autum and her father do not speak on behalf of a culture of racism. The Gaede girls are Neo-Nazi propagandists who embrace genocide. Autum doesn't sell albums, Prussian Blue does. You can't compare an angry black man and his daughter to the Aryan Nation anymore than you can compare Al Sharpton to Adolph Hitler.

The difference between black and white racism is the results. Black people have never oppressed whites. Black racism is born out of frustration. It's only logical that some black people might succumb to anger after years of getting nowhere with reason. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were civil rights heroes who were both gunned down in their prime. John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were committed to Civil Rights legislation and they were killed as well. It's not surprising that Autum wrote this poem, it's surprising more black children don't feel equally inclined.

Sadly, it's the outrage expressed by the likes of Michelle Malkin that reveal the racism that still dominates our society. Michelle and other white columnists made a big issue of this story and went out of their way to characterize the Ashantes as bigots, but the poem doesn't reveal any bigotry at all. It expresses outrage at the attitudes maintained by racist twits like Malkin.

Conservatives and Yellow Journalism.

By now everybody has heard about Franklin County Common Pleas Judge John A. Connor, who was vilified by the likes of Bill O'Reilly for sentencing "a convicted child rapist" to probation. Even though the sentence was imposed months ago...December, in fact...this story wasn't media fodder until the end of March. Why the delay? Political gamesmanship. Elections are coming this fall and Republicans are at risk. They need fodder and Judge Connor is a Democrat. If they can demonstrate that Liberals are sympathetic to child rapists, they won't have to face real issues. Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly was more than happy to sensationalize this story by omitting the facts.

What facts? Well how about the facts that implicate Republican Prosecutor Ron O'Brien? O'Brien has served as the Franklin County Prosecutor for a couple of terms and with embattled Governor Bob Taft on his way out, he is looking at advancing to a state post. He's had his sights set on the Auditor's office for sometime and might upgrade to Attorney General depending on which chair is open when the party music stops playing. O'Brien is the man in charge of all of the criminal cases tried in Franklin County, where Andrew Selva allegedly raped two boys and where Judge Connor sentenced Selva to a treatment program and house arrest. Of course, the conservative wags told the country that it was probation.

What O'Reilly didn't tell you is that Selva was originally charged with 20 counts of rape, but that those were dismissed in September of 2004 due to lack of evidence and inconsistent testimony. In March of 2005, the prosecutor negotiated a deal instead of seeking another indictment. The deal included two counts of sexual battery and a stipulation that the prosecution would not submit a sentence recommendation. A week later Selva pleads guilty to the sexual battery charges before Judge Connor and the judge orders a sentencing investigation. In December of 2005 Connor sentenced Selva to a year of house arrest and five year's probation.

Connor's rationalization of the sentence is reasonable. Through the investigation he discovered that Selva had no prior record. Witnesses for the prosecution and defense indicated that it was unlikely Selva would offend again and Selva had voluntarily committed himself to a sexual-offender counseling program. Since the deal presented to the court indicated that Selva had committed no sex acts against anybody after November of 2002, Connor had to presume that Selva had ceased criminal conduct for a period of at least 3 years.

According to the facts of the case presented to him, Connor imposed a fair sentence. Connor couldn't take the original charges into consideration as they were dismissed. Connor had to act only on the case presented to him, which did not include charges of rape, or a sentencing recommendation. In Connor's eyes, the prosecution did not see Andrew Selva as a threat to the community, and Connor did not see the benefit of a prison sentence. Instead Selva is under intensive supervision for a period of at least five years.

I agree that child molesters should be dealt with severely, but the burden of holding criminals accountable for their crimes falls on the shoulders of the Prosecuting Attorney. That's why we elect them. Judges aren't supposed to impose harsh sentences, the prosecutor is supposed to convince the judge they are necessary. Ron O'Brien's involvement in the case is unknown. It was handled by assistant prosecutors. That alone speaks volume as to the urgency O'Brien placed on the case. Had he felt that Selva was a threat to the community he would have taken more control over the case. Instead it was left to flunkies who negotiated a slap on the wrist sentence with an accused child rapist.

Judge Connor did his job. He followed sentencing guidelines and imposed a punishment that fit the crime. He's not the bad guy. Neither is Selva. If the victims and the people were let down in this case it was by a prosecutor more concerned with his climb up the political ladder than the cases before his office. Ron O'Brien is the one to blame.

Shame on the press, especially the conservative pundits, who piled on to this story without verifying the facts. They turned it into a political ambush by characterizing Connor as an incompetent activist judge. And they have the audacity to claim a liberal bias?

Worst President Ever

I was once told that George W. Bush would one day be revered as our greatest president. It astounded me that somebody I thought to be intelligent would make such an outlandish statement, but it made me stop and think about things a little differently. After careful consideration I doubt history will be kind to Bush.
Maybe I can’t get past my liberal bias. Maybe my judgment is clouded. Nevertheless, I believe Bush is the worst president ever.

That’s a bold statement. We’ve had some real dirt bags hold the office of President. While it’s true that the harsh edges of a poorly run administration can be softened overtime, the volume of Bush’s ineptitude is staggering . His body of work is such a complete and total mess, that the sands of time won’t polish his presidency, but rather reveal more of its flaws. It’s possible Bush will go down as one of the worst world leaders ever. The fact that he acquired and retained power in two highly questionable elections ranks him just below dictators who made a name for themselves slaughtering millions of people.

Where has he gone wrong? It would be easier to list the few things he’d done right, which would be...I’ll have to get back to you on that. But for the sake of argument (and brevity) I’ve compiled a list of five key issues:

1. Taxes

Blame Bill Clinton all you like, but facts are facts. The economy was stagnant under the first Bush, it boomed under Clinton and then collapsed under the second Bush. The only explanation is tax policies.

George W. Bush had no reason to change the economic climate when he took office. By cutting taxes he sent a strong economy into a tailspin. The reason the economy boomed under Bill Clinton is because the lower and middle class were shouldering a smaller tax burden which prompted them to spend the money they were saving. This resulted in increased production levels, created more jobs and eventually increased wages. Classes of people who never purchased stock were suddenly investing and global markets surged. Most importantly the dreaded national debt, which had spiraled out of control under Reagan and Bush, was being paid off. Consumer confidence was high.

George W. Bush wasted billions of dollars issuing a tax rebate. It was a shameless ploy to curry favor with the voters and sneak a massive tax break to large corporations. As businesses recognized the fiscal irresponsibility of this, production slipped and jobs were lost. Large businesses and wealthy people weren’t as motivated to stimulate the economy, because Bush was giving them their money in the form of tax cuts and rebates. While the everyday tax payer got a check for $300, corporations were getting huge breaks on fees and taxes and also getting rebates to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Under Clinton the wealthiest entities had to make their money, under Bush they got to keep it. Money doesn’t really trickle down. It’s like salmon, it swims upstream to spawn.

2. Disaster Relief

Moving ahead to the 2005 hurricane season, Bush was accused of making many mistakes, but the harsh reality is that he was powerless to stop the storms and the evacuation efforts are responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of the local authorities. Still, after being briefed on the magnitude of Katrina and the potential disaster, Bush could have gone out on a limb and taken charge of the situation. Instead he deferred to local officials. He didn’t want to be the one crying wolf if the storm weakened or turned away at the last minute. That’s selfish, but not atypical. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana did the same thing. Nobody wants to be Chicken Little.

Where Bush made the mistake was in the economic impact of the storm. The country was just starting to realize a sustained improvement in economic conditions. Job growth was inching ahead and production was improving. As Katrina churned through the gulf, analysts feared that the storm would affect oil production and send prices skyrocketing, which would have negative economic implications.

The prudent thing to do was freeze prices. There was no way to know how the storm would affect the refineries and stabilizing the market until the damage could be assessed would prevent economic panic. Instead, oil companies increased prices as the storm approached and held them over three dollars a gallon for as long as they could. Even after it was revealed that the refineries weren’t damaged and most of the off shore rigs were intact, the oil companies justified high gas prices because the infrastructure in the gulf was so badly damaged. Infrastructure or beach houses? Record profits make you wonder.

3. War on Iraq

The initial reason for invading Iraq was that Iraq had WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION and posed an immediate threat to the United States. In spite of numerous international reports to the contrary, the Bush team pushed forward with this theme, even sending Colin Powell to the UN to show them the “evidence” of Saddam’s “stockpiles.” The term “stockpile” might be subjective, but most people interpret a “stockpile” as an excessive amount of something. Any time you have to “pile” anything you tend to have a lot.

It didn’t take long to defeat Saddam’s troops. Apparently the massive army he had been outfitting was on leave when we invaded because the road to Baghdad was pretty short. Once Saddam’s forces were out of the picture the search for these illicit weapons began and after an exhaustive investigation we found nothing. Somehow we managed to catch Saddam Hussein, who should have been able to escape with billions of dollars, but the stockpiles of weapons were never found. Because they weren’t there.

Now, Bush and the gang concur that they were mistaken, which is political code for “we lied” and other premises for the war have been offered. Several others in fact, and each one is as implausible as the next:

Saddam was aiding al-Qaida:
Wrong.! Al-Qaida wanted Saddam dead. In fact reports have surfaced that al-Qaida sat back and waited for the U.S. to oust Saddam so they could sweep in and gain support among the fundamentalists Saddam spent so many years oppressing. Even if Saddam could check his ego long enough to consider such a partnership, Osama bin Laden wouldn’t dream of it.

Saddam was a brutal dictator:
Yes, he was. And it suited us just fine for 25 years. In fact, we gave him money, weapons and training to help him perfect those brutal methods in hopes that he would destroy fundamentalists inside and outside of Iraq. When Iraq was fighting Iran, he was a key ally, a secular Arab leader with a powerful military presence. The problem with Saddam was that his loyalties went to the highest bidder. We couldn’t trust him to always look out for our best interests.

Saddam was trying to buy uranium:
Maybe. What self-respecting world leader wouldn’t want to acquire the clout a strong nuclear program provides? A nuclear missile is like a back stage pass to the UN. However, it’s unlikely that the evidence the U.S. provided is valid. Our sources are unreliable and the documentation provided has been confirmed as forgeries. Even if he was advancing a nuclear program, it didn’t pose an immediate threat and the timing of this invasion distracted the US from more important tasks. Namely the next mistake on the list:

4. War on Terror

Go ahead. Remind me of the Americans who died on September 11th. Rant and rave about national security, immigration and people who hate America. Done? Good. Let’s be rational.

9-11 could have been averted. Clinton’s intelligence officials were aggressively following leads to identify the location and activities of terrorist cells located in the US. They were also tracking the movements and activities of Osama bin Laden. When Bush took office he was briefed on al-Qaida and on August 6th was provided with a memo that expressed specific concern that al-Qaida was planning to hijack commercial aircraft in the United States.

The Bush camp claims that the memo contained old intelligence and was not specific enough to follow up on and Bush proved how insignificant it was by remaining on his vacation until those buildings came crumbling down. But let’s assume that it couldn’t have been prevented. Let’s assume that Bush did work tirelessly trying to avert the impending attacks. The War on Terror is still a mistake.

Retaliation was necessary. I’m not suggesting that we should have simply ignored the attack, but the world was sympathetic to our plight. There was an outpouring of support from all corners of the globe which lasted until George Bush opened his mouth and started talking like some b-movie cowboy.

When we first approached Afghanistan about Osama bin Laden, the Taliban leaders requested we provide evidence as to Osama’s guilt. Bush scoffed. The Taliban leaders requested assurances that Osama bin Laden would be tried in an international court. Again we scoffed. Perhaps the Taliban was posturing for no other reason than to evoke international sympathy, maybe they were stalling so Osama could plan his escape. Whatever the reason, the self-righteous posture Bush took, disturbed the rest of the world and Bush drew some criticism.

As the siege ensued, the scope of our military’s deployment concerned the UN who feared that civilian casualties were too high. They felt that the Taliban and Al-Qaida forces were too small and dispersed through the civilian population to warrant heavy bombing and the use of artillery. As concern grew to outrage Bush threatened the rest of the world by reminding them that they were either with us or against us. Very diplomatic.

After 9-11 the United States needed a voice of reason. Somebody wise enough to realize that there was a difference between justice and vengeance. What we got was Rudy Giuliani. When Bush finally came out of hiding we got a lot of though talk. That is the underlying flaw in the war on terror. Bush embarked on a crusade for vengeance when this country should have engaged in a quest for justice. The President is supposed to have more sense than the angry mob, not less.

5. The Patriot Act.

If you believe that the 9-11 attack on this country was really about our love of freedom and not a retaliation for years of social and economic oppression perpetrated by our country on the people of the Middle East then the patriot Act should frighten you more than it does those who are opposed to the two wars this country is engaged in.

The reason our criminal justice system is supposed to operate in clear view of the public is so the public can scrutinize the criminal justice system. The Patriot Act actually serves to expand the power of various law enforcement entities while concealing their activity from public view. This gives everybody reason to question the legitimacy of everything they do.

Jefferson once said he would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than to those attending a small degree of it. Liberty isn’t easy. There is no question that the civil rights that protect our very freedom also make us susceptible to an enemy’s attack. But limiting freedom and eliminating government accountability for playing by the rules does more damage to this country than anything a terrorist could do.


Sadly, under Bush we have seen this country step off of the high road and resort to tactics and strategies this country has always stood against. We have suspended the civility of the international community and engaged in acts of torture and humiliation that violate the standards we have always tried to hold the rest of the world too.

There was a time when the United States was the benevolent global constable who was always willing to lend a hand, now we’re the dirty back alley cop pistol-whipping anybody who questions our motives or authority. We used to be right, now we’re self-righteous. I can't think a of a President who has corrupted our freedom and destroyed our international credibility more than Bush has. Foreign and Domestic. The cycle of failure is complete.

Support our Troops?

Thanks for the invitation, but I'll pass. I know that's an extremely unpopular position to take since thousands of young men and women are putting their lives on the line every day, but I'm not the one using the "Support our Troops" rally cry to silence dissent over the nature of this war.

That's what it is you know. Bush's limited supporters have long given up on calling people to stand behind our president. The endless stream of lies, the irresponsible leadership, the vacations and his inability to hold his staff accountable for their actions has made it impossible for all but the most foolish of Republicans to stand behind the president.

This war is unjust. Our soldiers are fighting a for a cause that the majority of the Iraqi people don't want--which explains the well organized and highly motivated insurgency--and the American people don't need. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Never. Our original impetus for invading Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. The search for WMD's revealed nothing. After Bush hired and fired several chief inspectors to seek out the desired conclusion, the best we could come up with is that Saddam's WMD programs were dismantled back in 1991. Oops.

After that cause was exposed as a fabricated sham, Bush and his cronies changed gears and gave our war a purpose after the fact. Saddam was supporting al-Qaida. While some Americans believed this, most people capable of reading thought it was a wry little joke. Why would Saddam want to support an organization that was trying to kill him? Does that make any sense at all?

After Colin Powell sat in front of the U.N. waving bogus pieces of evidence around as irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was actively stockpiling WMD's the United States lost all credibility with the rest of the world. Powell was upset that he was outfitted with fabricated evidence and resigned after Bush's first term. How can we believe anything the Bush administration says?

Saddam was a secular ruler in region highly susceptible to theocracy. The high illiteracy rate, and lack of information gives clerics a great deal of power which they wield with a cruel decisiveness. Iraq is populated with zealous fundamentalist Muslims who vastly outnumber the more reasonable and educated Muslims who embraced the secular leadership of Saddam. Under Saddam Hussein fundamentalist practices were banned, education became a priority and women were granted a number of rights that included employment and divorce. He went so far as to outlaw Sharia law, which is the cornerstone of an Islamic theocracy. This infuriated fundamentalists and invoked the wrath of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network of extremists.

There was not a truce between the two so they could pool their resources against the United States. Fundamentalists like Osama don't operate that way and it's unlikely that a megalomaniac such as Saddam would entertain such a compromise either. This theory of collusion was widely dismissed as wishful thinking as soon as it was offered. Strike two.

That's when Bush grasped at the humanitarian aspect of this war. Which would have made sense if the U.S. had done two very important things: First, define that cause in advance of the war and gain U.N. support for the humanitarian aspect of ousting Saddam. Second, and possibly most important, demonstrate that the U.S. has a pattern of deposing tryanical dictators who brutalize their people. Surely we sent forces in to contend with Pol Pot or Ceaucescu. Oh, that's right. We never lifted a finger to help the people those murderous dictators oppressed.

It seems like years have passed since Bush stood in front of a carefully selected group of troops on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf in his flight suit and smirk to declare "Mission Accomplished". It's almost like he had a banner flying behind him with those very words emblazoned across it. Saddam's regime had fallen and the people he had oppressed for so long were now free to embrace democracy. Our boys (and girls) were coming home. Hooah!

Except a funny thing happened on the way to democratic bliss. All those fundamentalists Saddam had been keeping at bay decided they were going to take control of Iraq. No room for democracy and freedom. They wanted an Islamic theocracy and they wanted it now. At first, Bush and the boys were elated. This was the proof they needed to link al-Qaida to Iraq. Once we pushed back this tiny band of foreign terrorists the people of Iraq would be free to govern themselves and Bush would have his red herring. Except it wasn't al-Qaida. Oh they have a hand in things now, but the first band of insurgents were rank and file fundamentalists.

Since accomplishing our mission, thousands of U.S. Soldiers have died and the network of insurgents shows no sign of weakening. The Bush administration has changed the complexion of this war by no longer referring to it as a war on terror, but rather a long war. They don't specify what the goal of the war is, but apparently they are going to fight it until it's over. Obviously this has drawn a lot of criticism.

We aren't fighting one enemy right now. There are several groups that are working independently with the common goal of running our forces out of Iraq. Al-Qaida, Islamic Jihad, Shi'a insurgents, Sunni insurgents. The list of those opposed to our occupation seems to grow each day, and none of them seem interested in accepting the authority of the puppet government we have worked so hard to install. Once we leave, they'll destroy the Iraqi government we created and then they'll fight amongst themselves for the next three thousand years.

The Bush administration and sympathetic media entities (Fox) have resorted to exploiting the young men and women fighting the war to make would be protestors feel guilty about questioning Bush and his administration about this war. The rebuke is that our soldiers will see the lack of public support and lose morale thus making them less effective and increasing their risk of being killed in combat. The real kicker is that this will only draw things out even longer.

That's rich. So now, as the body bags pile up, they can blame war protestors for the loss of life. The American public isn't stupid enough to fall for that. We've learned our lessons from Vietnam and understand that the soldiers are victims. While we won't be lining up to wave flags anytime soon, we'll happily acknowledge the sacrifices our troops have been forced to make by an irresponsible administration. We know who to blame, and we won't let you hide behind the troops. Not this time.

Nobody has lodged criticism toward the troops. Even in the case of the Abu Ghraib scandal, most reasonable people believe Lynndie England and Charles Graner were offered up as patsies. Anybody who has been in the military knows that it is highly unlikely that such low ranking soldiers would take the initative to employ such extensive measures to humiliate and torture military prisoners.

One gets the impression reading through various reports that even the high ranking officers are weary of this war. While nobody currently serving will publicly criticize the war or the administration's handling of it, you can sense the frustration in their words when they talk about the details of this ongoing battle. Our forces are stretched dangerously thin, supplies aren't getting where they are needed and progress is dubious.

It's not a war worth supporting. The troops deserve our respect, but supporting the war is doing them a grave disservice. Voicing dissent about the war and the administration will force our leaders to consider withdrawing forces to appease an uneasy public. Protesting the war will serve to give leaders pause when future military incursions are pondered.

Those who support the war believe they are being patriotic, but that's not true. Patriotism is not about blindly supporting your country regardless of what it does. A true patriot realizes that his country is bigger than one regime. A true patriot isn't afraid to question his government or express his dissent.

This war the Bush administration has gotten us into defies everything good patriots have stood and died for throughout our country's history. This war isn't about freedom and justice, it's a personal vendetta. This war was not conceived with the interests of national security at stake, it was about possession of oil fields. No, this war isn't good. It's not righteous or just. This war is about ego and greed and I will not support it and by extension I simply cannot pretend I support our troops.

Church and State.

I laugh as I read through some of the blogs, conservative columns and frantic letters to the editor that outline a sinister liberal agenda to promote homosexuality, atheism, and terrorism throughout the world. What a contrived reality this point of view conveys.

I am an atheist. That is to say I believe that there is no god. No heaven, no hell. Nothing. When you die that's it. End of story. Like a struck match, our time is fleeting. Some of us might light a few candles along the way, others might set massive blazes but we all end up snuffed out after our time expires. Some matches burn a little longer, some a little brighter but in the end it's all the same.

That doesn't mean I'm right and it is not my desire to foist that belief on others. That's why I want our government and, by extension, our public schools to promote secularism. Nobody knows if their theory is right or wrong, so let's agree to have a government that
remains neutral.

Secularism is not atheism. Secularism is the exclusion of religion from the public function of government. Elected and appointed officials are welcome to let their spirituality guide them in their duties, but they should never be inclined to impose their religion on others. When people move to take religion out of a school they aren't replacing it with a culture of atheism, they are simply leaving the question of religion unanswered so that spirituality can be guided privately. That's fair, isn't it? If you're a responsible parent you should insist on it.

Christians make the mistake of confusing secularism with atheism. In their small minds this is a Christian society and our government has a duty to promote Christianity. But which brand? I can't keep track of all the denominations but I do know that there is constant bickering within the institution of Christianity over which version is right.

Ironically one of the loudest voices supporting the separation of church and state was that of Jesus Christ. He saw how easily corrupted religion became when it was mixed with politics and everything he did was intended to empower the individual to take control of his own spiritual path. Jesus preached a message of introspection. When the Jews who subscribed to his teachings asked about the Romans, Jesus told them it didn't matter what the Romans did. Essentially the underlying message delivered by Jesus was to mind your own business. Pray not in public...Worry not about the spec in thy neighbor's eye...Let he who is without sin...yadda, yadda, yadda.

I had Christianity crammed down my throat as a child. I resented it. I lost all interest in Christianity when my second grade teacher told me that dogs don't go to heaven because they don't have souls. I didn't think that was fair and my concern led me to question everything about religion. If Santa Claus is a fraud and the Easter Bunny is a hoax, who the heck is this Jesus guy everybody is clamoring about? As I got older I realized that I was an atheist. Sure, it would be wonderful if there was another plane of existence after this one, but I just don't buy it. Who am I to think that I am worthy of immortality?

That's not to say that my position on this matter is based entirely on the fact that I won't be reunited with my dog when I die. That's not the point, although some Christians have tried to simplify it to that common denominator. That was the moment when I started to question religion and over the years I have become increasingly certain that there is no deity waiting on the other side. In my mind people are terrified of the finality of death so they create this concept of an afterlife. They need to believe that death is not an end but a beginning and I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't welcome an afterlife, but I can't buy into a religion just because I'm afraid to die.

Unlike Christians I don't feel compelled to get people to join me. As long as I can live in peace and not have religion forced on me I couldn't care less who else agrees with me. Christians, however, are so insecure in what they believe they require institutional reinforcement of their beliefs. They feel a need to convert others to their religion and desire the leadership of a theocracy. Maybe it's a strength in numbers sort of thing. Perhaps it's easier to believe in fairy tales when everybody else believes in them too. This is a dangerous aspect of Christianity. That very sort of thinking is what gives Osama bin Laden so much power in the Middle East. Do we want our own insane fundamentalist, Pat Robertson calling the shots for our government?

I resent the implication that removing religion from public schools is an attempt to force atheism on anybody. The reality is that the practice of secularism actually serves to protect religion by allowing people to control the manner in which they practice their faiths. Christians can't agree with each other on certain aspects of Christianity. How can we expect an objective
application of religion to be honored if we don't simply remove religion from the public domain all together?

Secularism is neutrality. It is a position of respect and one that is necessary in a society such as ours that is supposed to embrace myriad cultures and creeds. It's true that there are some traditions within our government that seem to embody Christianity but that was done in error in a time when people arrogantly assumed that everybody was Christian and the differences were minor. Time has proven that position to be false. In reality Christian denominations can differ bitterly, even violently, on certain issues and then we have millions of American citizens who are not Christian. Our government should be sensitive to these differences and avoid religion in the interest of fairness.

Religion shouldn't be about a society's connection with a theology, but rather the relationship an individual has with his or her deity. According to Christian texts, God will not be judging America on it's devotion to Christ but rather each person will be judged individually. One of the concepts mentioned in the bible is free will. This is the idea that god has granted everybody with the power to choose their own path. How does the political institutionalization of religion impact a concept like free will? It crushes it. A person can't come to Jesus freely if everybody and everything is shoving him in that direction. It makes you wonder how many people are true Christians.

So let's review: How does removing "under god" from the pledge of allegiance affect your personal relationship with god? Why would god be upset with you if the science curriculum at a public school doesn't promote Creation as the origin of the species? Is god really going to punish you because our government removed the Ten Commandments from a courthouse?

The answer is no. The laws of man have no impact on your relationship with god. You still have the right to read the bible, attend church and believe what you want to believe. As a parent you have the right to exclude your child from science classes that teach theories you believe are blasphemous and if that's not enough you can send your child to a Christian School. Nobody has infringed upon your right to practice your religion. Nobody wants to.

Secularism is a movement intended to protect everybody's individual beliefs and it's not a new concept. The idea was first expressed by Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Notice how he used the strategic phrase ..."endowed by their creator..."? At the time it sparked a bit of a controversy because he didn't mention God or Jesus Christ. A few years later James Madison infuriated religious leaders of the day when he excluded mention of God and Jesus from the Constitution of the United States of America. They told him that this was a Christian nation, to which he replied that it most certainly was not.

I don't practice Atheism. There's nothing to practice. I don't have a bible or a church to which I can turn to express my spiritual views. It doesn't bother me that people practice religion. I respect that. What I resent, however, is the arrogant assumption that our government was constructed upon a theological foundation and must be immersed in religion to be effective. This is simply not true. The majority of our founding fathers were deists who believed that there was a creator but not in the popular religious doctrines of that era. Most of our founders openly challenged Christianity's theological dogma and they agreed that our government had to be free of religion if it was going to protect an individual's religious freedom.

But don't take my word for it. Look within yourself and find your feelings. Get in touch with your spiritual side and ask yourself, what would Jesus do? What would he do indeed. Based on the passages in the bible that outline his teachings it seems abundantly clear, Jesus would have minded his own business.

Beltway Nitwits get it wrong again.

Ah yes, the White House Press Corps. These are the self-agrandizing hacks who pretend to write the news when we all know their real goal is face time. Case in point: The indignation over the delay in the White House reporting the Dick Cheney hunting accident. Yes, I know it's almost old news, but it shouldn't be. It's not the shooting I take issue with--accidents really do happen--but the breakdown in communication perplexes me.

The issue is not whether or not the American people have a right to be informed, which is the unfortunate position the White House Press Corps is taking. The people do have a right to be informed but the issue is one of legal protocol. Why was there a delay in calling the police. Standard Operating Procedure in any hospital is to call the police when somebody requires treatment for a gunshot wound. It doesn't matter if that injury was sustained in a hunting accident or a gang related shooting and the victim has no say in the matter.

The fact that the police weren't notified right away indicates that somebody pulled strings to keep them out of the loop. This is a manipulation of the status quo. You're average citizen wouldn't be able to impose such a delay, but Cheney is not your average citizen. As Vice President he has the ability to alter normal procedure and in this case it's clear he did. That's what you call an abuse of power. Why was he so inclined?

Conservative spin doctors have been playing the "HUMAN TRAGEDY" angle on this one. They have spoken about Whittington and Cheney and their families as though everybody needs to stop and shed a single tear. That's bull. Cheney's getting paid a lot of money to be held publicly accountable for everything he does. If he eats two bowls of corn flakes, he'd better have his story straight. That's the price you pay for being in that office. In this instance the Veep shot a man. That's a pretty big deal.

I'm not upset with Cheney for shooting somebody. It's about time that this life long war monger got a little blood on his hands, even if it was in an accidental shooting. What upsets me is the complete disregard for due process Cheney and the Bush administration exhibited. Sure, four days after the event Cheney issued a brief statement, but why wasn't he questioned by police right after the shooting?

At worst Cheney might have been drunk. Obviously that is a scenario that would have given the left a lot of PR fodder, but ultimately that's forgivable--especially if Cheney had opted to come forward and face the music. Minor criminal charges would have been filed had alcohol been determined an attributing cause to the accident, but at the most Cheney would have been asked to pay a fine and seek treatment. If Whittington was also under the influence the charges might have been dropped if both men promised to never hunt again.

The press doesn't see it that way. Instead of asking why the police weren't called they want to know why they weren't informed. The White House Press Corps might be the lowest form of journalist. They sit in a special room and wait for the news to be handed to them. They remind me of hungry carp waiting for people to throw them scraps of stale bread. You can't even compare them to sharks because that intimates that they are predatory. These hacks and yahoos filling seats in the White House press room can't write a story until they're handed a press release. God forbid somebody should get off his butt and make a phone call or follow a lead. You know, reporting? Remember that? They used to teach it in journalism school.

Who, what, where, why and when. The five questions an average journalist must ask. What is the standard procedure for handling a gunshot wound? Why was this procedure not followed? Who decided to depart from the norm? Where was Dick Cheney when this decision was made? When were you planning on calling the police?

The White House Press Corps version of those five questions is something like this: Why didn't you tell us? Who do you think you are? What am I supposed to tell my boss? Where's my paycheck? When can I take my next vacation?


Actually what I really want to know is where Dick Cheney gets off taking a hunting trip. Cheney travels with an extensive security detail and has a medical team with him at all times. Besides the obvious logistical concerns of putting the Vice President in close proximity to loaded weapons, you have the enormous expense of paying all of those people to follow Cheney everywhere he goes. How much body armor could have been purchased with the money spent on Cheney's traveling party?

Cheney's shooting woes reveal true nature of White House

Accidents happen. Especially when old white guys decide to shoot at birds. People have taken numerous shots at Dick Cheney over his hunting mishap and frankly I think it's justified. I don't feel sorry for Cheney or Harry Whittington, the man Cheney shot. I'm not impressed with the type of hunting they were engaged in, which is a staged hunt where the birds are released right in front of the hunting party. It's the kind of thing rich old white men do so they can feel powerful and I don't like it. For that matter I never feel any sympathy for hunters who fall victim to hunting accidents. I don't oppose hunting, but I also don't have a problem with natural selection. Trust me when I tell you that the people we lose to hunting accidents aren't typically people who will be missed by the human race at large. Sorry.

What troubles me over this whole ordeal, and what should disturb everybody, is the complete lack of respect Cheney has shown for the American people and his president in this matter. I'm not naive. I know Cheney has no respect for anybody. He's an nasty little troll of a man who is probably the brains behind the entire Bush administration, but one would think that Cheney would be inclined to at least feign subordination once in a while...especially when he breaks the law. After all, he is the Vice President which means, as ridiculous as it sounds, he reports to George W. Bush. Yes, it brings to mind those Career Builder commercials where the monkeys are running the company, but we elected him...well not really, but it was still close.

When a shooting victim is first identified by the hospital police are immediately called to take statements from witnesses and the victim if the victim is capable of offering a statement. Once that ball starts rolling the story is public domain. In the Cheney case the police weren't immediately contacted and it was the owner of the hunting ranch who first mentioned the story to the local news paper. This upset a lot of people, including the local authorities who wondered why they weren't notified immediately. In fact, failing to notify the proper authorities immediately after such a shooting constitutes obstruction of justice. Will charges be filed?

Even though this was an accident and the victim should recover nicely, the fact remains that a man was hospitalized after being shot by the Vice President of the United States of America. As soon as Whittington was in good hands Cheney needed to call the President and the President needed to issue a statement. Period. There was no reason for the delay. Anything less than full disclosure in this matter gives the public reason to question the validity of the story.

Since there was a solid 24 buffer period between the time of the incident and when it was actually reported and the local police weren't able to conduct an investigation one can only assume that there's something that the Bush administration is not telling us. There had to be some reason that the story was kept under wraps for such a long period of time. What could it be?

My guess is alcohol. A sad reality in the hunting community is that a staggering number of hunters drink before, during and after the hunt. After isn't a big deal, but booze and bullets are never a healthy combination. When you read the limited details that were released it sure sounds as if Cheney's judgment might have been impaired. We're talking about a group of people shooting at a flock of farm-raised birds. Cheney probably knocked back one too many bourbons and forgot the 5 minute hunter safety lesson he received prior to being driven out to the covey where the birds were to be released. That would have been the lesson where they tell the hunters to shoot within a predetermined firing zone. By failing to notify the authorities immediately, Cheney was able to forgo the requisite alcohol screening that would have revealed if the shooting was indeed an unfortunate accident or the result of criminal negligence brought on by alcohol abuse.

Cheney took his sweet time getting around to issuing a statement, but one gets the impression that the statement was carefully written and painstakingly rehearsed. Cheney was caught in a tough spot with candor being the only way out, but why the delay? Why did Cheney refuse to come forward until four days after the shooting?

It's a good question, but the answer is obvious: Bush isn't calling the shots. This is Dick Cheney's White House and he runs the show. Unlike a real president, Cheney is in that unique position of being able to show the press and the public complete disdain. He comes and goes as he pleases, says and does what he likes and there's nothing we can do about it because he's not the president...officially anyway. In the past, Presidents have demanded that their Vice Presidents toe the line and represent the administration in a positive light, but not Cheney. Dick's been a mean old bastard from day one and Bush has done absolutely nothing to rein him in. It's quite clear who wears the pants in this family and that doesn't bode well for this country. Case in point: Iraq. Weren't we supposed to be finished with that little endeavor by now?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually revealed that Dick Cheney shot Whittington just to prove that he could get away with shooting a man. Cheney knew that the last V.P. to bust a cap in somebody was Aaron Burr and decided it was time to make a little history. Hey Harry! Here come the judge, here come the judge. POW!

Race Cards should be played with caution

Donvan McNabb finally opened up on his feelings regarding the Terrell Owens saga. Unfortunately, Donovan seems to have kept quiet on the subject too long and opted to express himself in an unflattering manner.

I respect Donovan McNabb. He's endured the hostile wrath of Eagles fans who wanted to see their team draft Ricky Williams. McNabb came to Philadelphia having to overcome an entire fan base that wanted to see him fail for no other reason than to vindicate the second guessing that occurred when the Eagles drafted McNabb with their first round pick in 1999.

Since then McNabb has been a class act. He kept his mouth shut and played hard, eventually winning the hearts of those cruel Eagles fans. When Rush Limbaugh took shots at him, McNabb took the high road and kept on playing without offering much of an opinion on the subject. Why argue with idiots? Even when things started to disintegrate shortly after the Eagles lost Super Bowl 39 to the Patriots, Mcnabb kept quiet and offered no insight into how he felt about T.O.

Now that T.O. is all but out of Philadelphia forever, McNabb has finally offered some perspective. In a recent interview he compared T.O.'s antics to black on black crime. Donovan said he was particular hurt by T.O.'s comments that Brett Favre would be a better fit for the Eagles. Apparently McNabb inferred a racial slur in this assessment because Owens chose to identify Brett Favre over the other black quarterbacks in the league.

I don't begrudge McNabb being frustrated. I also believe that McNabb and T.O. might have shared some private thoughts on Brett Favre and Owens' opted to use the inside information to hurt McNabb. In MY opinion, Brett Favre has been given a much longer leash because he is white. I believe that if Brett Favre were black, coaches and fans would be a lot less tolerant of his reckless style of play. I suspect that McNabb shares a similar opinion and expressed that opinion to Owens.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is the fact that T.O. went out of his way to publicly humiliate his teammate and quarterback. McNabb has a right to be upset and if he feels that race is a factor in those comments he is certainly entitled to that interpretation. Perception is reality.

unfortunately McNabb's timing is off. The T.O. situation is finished. The Eagles will trade Owens to another team or simply cut him at the last possible minute. It's obvious that Owens is not the right fit for Philadelphia. McNabb could have just as easily said good riddance to bad rubbish and moved on. Instead he decided to express his feelings and in doing so he finally played the race card.

It was a bad play. The time to lay that card on the table was when Rush Limbaugh accused McNabb of getting a free pass from a liberal sports media who wanted to have a black quarterback excel. Limbaugh claimed that his comments weren't racially motivated but they were. He implied that there weren't any successful black quarterbacks so the media was sensationalizing the performance of one charismatic player to fulfill that need. It was bull, but Rush was playing to his crowd of fat angry white people who aren't smart enough to form their own opinions. McNabb dismissed the affair as no big deal when in reality it was a very big deal indeed. Rush is a racist. McNabb even took a shot from the NAACP when a local organization boss, Jerry Mondesire, opted to accuse McNabb of selling out by trying to be a pocket passer. Again, another great time to fight back. Mondesire had no business using his post in the NAACP as a platform from which to take a shot at a professional athlete who has been nothing but a positive role model for blacks and whites alike. Mondesire seemed particularly upset that McNabb is a spokesman for Campbell's. Apparently nothing says Uncle Tom quite like a bowl of Chunky Soup.

Owens' comments don't have obvious racial implications. McNabb seems to be crying wolf. That's why I think that there's more than meets the eye to this Brett Favre reference. But since we don't have the whole story, we can't draw any conclusions and it's McNabb who looks like the moron.

Sadly, this misplay of the race card happens too often in sports. Athletes are insecure creatures. Nothing exemplifies this better than the antics of Terrell Owens, who needs reassurance through compensation as well as adulation. Black athletes sometimes feel that criticism, especially that from the predominantly white media/fanbase, is racially motivated. Sometimes it is, but most of the time it is not. For most people sports transcends race.

Barry Bonds plays the race card. The man accused the press of trying to tear him down when his mistress came out and said she saw him take steroids. It's not a conspiracy, Barry, whitey didn't make you cheat on your wife. You did that. Your mistress saw you taking steroids, got mad at you and told the press. They had to run the story. Barry thinks that the world hates him because he's a black man who is threatening to break all the records. That's not true. The world hates Barry Bonds because he's an insufferable ass. The fact that he's black is unfortunate because it gives him an out.

Shortly after becoming the highest paid athlete in the history of professional sports, Jose Canseco complained that he was treated unfairly by fans, coaches and the press because he happened to be Latino. That was untrue. He was vilified because he was an arrogant jerk who got paid too much money. His ethnicity had nothing to do with the animosity he perceived. If you want proof of that look for the footage of a routine fly ball bouncing off his noggin for a home run in Cleveland back in 1993. God doesn't even like Canseco.

When people use the race card to deflect warranted criticism or to justify unacceptable behavior they weaken the suit. It makes it that much easier to doubt the sincerity of future claims of racial prejudice and even alienates those who are sympathetic to oft-affected minorities. It's the cry-wolf scenario. Pretty soon nobody listens.

McNabb's comments disturbed me because they didn't make any sense. He said it would have been different if Owens had compared him to Dante Culpepper or Byron Leftwich, but that Brett Favre was a slap in the face. Why? Favre is a future Hall of Famer while Leftwich might be heading for a career carrying a clipboard and Culpepper is good, but not in the same category as McNabb. Why is Favre such an insult? It made me wonder if McNabb has some racial issues himself or if he simply feels the same way I do about Favre and his erratic play. Since McNabb didn't elaborate on why, he leaves us to fill in the blank. Unfortunately that requires too much of a leap.

McNabb's got to stay consistent. If he doesn't want race to be the issue then he can't bring it up. He avoided the discussion when Mondesire and Limbaugh came after him and he didn't take T.O.'s bate when Owens took shots at him through the press. He took the high road. Admirable. But if that's the path you choose to take you need to stay on it.

Archie Bunker's Bar and Grill..Part 2

I checked and Ohio doesn't have Confederate roots. During the Civil War Ohio sent troops to represent the Union and Ohio was a critical stop on the Underground Railroad. Slaves escaped southern plantations and made their way north along corridors that are now interstate highways in Ohio. Perhaps the motivation of the Underground Railroad wasn't so much to free the slaves as it was to encourage blacks to get out. That's pretty much the message Columbus night clubs are sending.

The hot spot in Columbus is the Arena District, which is an entertainment mecca built around Nationwide Arena, the downtown complex that is home to the lowly Columbus Blue Jackets (I prefer Bleu Jackets because like the cheese this NHL team stinks and crumbles easily)and the subservient Columbus Destroyers of the Arena Football League. Trendy restaurants, bars and night clubs have sprung up in the area hoping to cater to the event driven crowds.

On February 3rd The Columbus Dispatch ran an article by Alice Cervantes revealing the arbitrary dress codes being enforced by many of the clubs and bars in the Arena District and adjacent area. Patrons are not permitted to wear athletic jerseys unless they are representative of the teams playing on a particular day. In other words you can wear a hockey sweater on game day, but not on the day after. Always forbidden are jerseys of teams not playing.So you can't proudly show your NFL, Major League Baseball or NBA affiliations. Additionally these establishments enforce hat standards that forbid patrons from wearing a cap that is cocked to one side. Stocking and flat brimmed hats are not permitted.

They don't stop there. Other items that are prohibited include "selected" logos (think Fubu) bandannas, baggy clothing and chain necklaces must be tucked inside a shirt. One club owner, Eric Fortney of Gaswerks, claims that he's not trying to be a fashion critic but that he wants to keep out that undesirable element. The chain necklaces are just "more gang-related". He further elaborated and said that you just don't want stabbings and shootings and drive-bys going on in a classy entertainment district. Eric apparently slept through the entire 1990's decade and missed that moment when Hip Hop counter culture became mainstream pop culture. That would have been when blacks and whites united to denounce Vanilla Ice and reject his music.

While nobody is coming out and saying it directly, the subjective dress codes are intended to discourage black patrons. Hockey is a white sport and the clubs in the Arena district cater to white people.By banning clothing associated with the Hip Hop culture these clubs can foster a predominately white environment.

It's true that these are private businesses that have the right to refuse service to anybody, but this is a clear cut attempt to enforce a discriminatory policy. It's not as though these are clubs that endeavor to serve a high class clientele; these are not jacket and tie establishments. Gaswerks is admittedly a jeans and t-shirt kind of place with a laid back vibe. Of course if that T-shit has the Fubu or Ecko logo on it, you'll be turned away at the door. Nascar, however, is always welcome because you don't get much whiter then inbred toothless rednecks who drive in circles really fast.


Sadly this sort of attitude is common in Columbus. Having lived in this town for almost 15 years, I have been stunned at the racial prejudice that is harbored here. Unfortunately it's that northern brand of racial bias where the white people are too cowardly to express their views directly. Epithets fly but only after the perpetrator scans the room for parties that would take offense.

At least in the south racists are open. They fly Confederate flags and scream racially insensitive remarks at anybody of color. That's the sort of racism you can respect. You know where you stand. But in Columbus these racists will shake your hand and treat you like royalty only to cut you and yours to ribbons once you're out of earshot.

Anybody who pays attention knows that Hip Hop is the scene for the 18-34 year-old crowd. Look at the music charts...listen to the songs being played in the clubs. Cindy Lauper's collaborating with Shaggy, Carlos Santanna's playing guitar with the Fugees, Snoop Doggy Dogg is a mainstream icon...Nelly sang a duet with Tim Mcgraw! The lines between black and white are more blurred than ever and these clowns in Columbus want to create a new brand of segregation? For what? Because in their tiny minds gang-bangers wear baggy pants? Please.

The War on Gays

2004 was a dramatic election year where the American public made a strong moral statement. Puritans are back! Several states passed marriage amendments that essentially prohibit homosexual unions and Ohio's contribution went a step beyond by effectively rendering all relationships that aren't sealed with the government's approval as invalid. So not only did the state tell gays they can't marry, the state also said that it won't respect common law relationships either. Isn't Ohio great?

Now it seems that there is a push to stamp out homosexuality in its entirety. The same folks who decided to impose their morals on the government's interpretation of marriage are now exerting tremendous pressure on organizations and business that are allegedly gay-friendly.

The pressure is coming in the form of boycotts and demonstrations. It ranges anywhere from simply bullying small local businesses into compliance to boycotting the companies who advertise on networks that feature gay friendly programming. These groups seek out businesses that directly market to the gay community through gay-oriented publications and demand that the advertising be pulled. Sadly it's worked. One major automotive manufacturer decided to terminate marketing programs that were directed toward the homosexual demographic. They claim that it was simply a business decision, but it's quite a coincidence.

The reason the far right is engaged in a war on gays is because they seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy out there. They call it THE GAY AGENDA (insert dramatic music here). THE GAY AGENDA, if you listen to the religiots explain it, is a massive plot to turn everybody gay. Shows like Will and Grace make homosexuality seem normal and portray homosexuals as likeable people while other programs simply try to cram gratuitous homosexuality down your throat. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy goes so far as to encourage men to live a homosexual lifestyle which will eventually lead to homosexual behavior. We simply can't have that.

They tell outlandish stories of far away school boards that actually have classes that teach kids how to be gay. Although a little bit of research reveals that the only education in our public schools that even broaches the subject of homosexuality does it in a manner that asks students to respect their homosexual peers and demonstrate a little tolerance. Perhaps that's the first step in becoming gay.

A similar story surfaced shortly after 9-11 depicting the horrible state of affairs in California when schools started teaching the Koran. How dare they? Well, it wasn't quite that dramatic. School officials decided to take proactive steps in averting potential hate crimes against Muslim students so a comparative class was offered that demonstrated the similarities between Islam and Christianity. It wasn't religious instruction, just a little cultural sensitivity lesson. No big deal. And after the religious right had its time on the soap box the fuss subsided.

Religiots insist that homosexuality is a choice. They believe that it's a rebellious expression and the goal of homosexuals is to create more. The fact is that a lot of homosexuals do make an effort to reach out to kids. The goal isn't to recruit straight kids into homosexuality, but rather to let the gay kids know that they aren't alone. Most gay adults anguished over their sexuality throughout their youth and many do so well into adulthood.

The self-destructive behavior so often attributed to the so-called GAY LIFESTYLE; the drugs, the alcohol, the irresponsible sexual behavior; is not indicative of homosexuality but instead is the product of a traumatic childhood. It's what happens when a person is subjected to extreme emotional torture and psychological abuse. There are plenty of straight people who indulge in the same sort of behavior.

The fact is homosexuals want what straight people want. That's a stable loving relationship with a person they find both attractive and intellectually stimulating. There's nothing twisted or sick about it. They just happen to be wired to desire such a relationship with somebody of their own gender. The goal is not to force homosexuality on anybody, if anything it's to get straights to stop imposing heterosexuality on them.

Homosexuality is not a choice. No more than heterosexuality is. I'm straight. I can't say that I'm proud of it and at times I can see decided advantages to being gay, but I'm not wired to find another man sexually attractive. If I were stuck on a tropical island with another man for five years I doubt that I would find him attractive. I never once thought that I might enjoy being gay.

To assume homosexuality is a choice means you have to acknowledge that heterosexuality is a choice as well. I never made that choice. I know there was a time when I said girls were yucky, but mostly that was a defense mechanism so I wouldn't have to talk about romantic issues with my parents. The easy way out was to claim that I wasn't interested in girls but the reality is that I can't remember a time when I wasn't attracted to them. I've had hundreds of crushes on hundreds of girls through the years but never once had the same feeling for a guy. Not even for Brad Pitt.

If sexuality were a choice then you would have to struggle with the decision at some point. I can't recall a time when I was pawing through the JCPenney underwear section and could have gone either way. Somehow I doubt that anybody has. Not one gay person has ever told me that they made a choice. They always knew they were gay, even if they tried to deny it. Deep inside they always knew the truth.

Still the religiots insist it is a choice. They know it is. Which makes me wonder if they are all homosexuals who force themselves to live the heterosexual lifestyle. That's the only way they could possibly believe that it is a choice. A true heterosexual would never leap to such a conclusion.

It makes sense that the people trying to stamp out homosexuality are actually repressed homosexuals. Clearly they aren't comfortable with their own sexuality and seeing homosexuals expressing themselves publicly drives them crazy with envy. Why should other people get to enjoy the forbidden pleasures of homosexuality when they're holding back those same feelings with everything they've got?

Homosexuality is not evil and frankly it doesn't seem as though god had too much of a problem with it either. Back when he was laying down the law to Moses he talked about lying, stealing, killing and used a few commandments up on worship but god never made mention of homosexuality. As abhorrent as the religiots like to make homosexuality out to be, it's not even one of the seven deadly sins. And the underlying theme in Jesus' teachings was to mind your own business.

There must be better things to rage against. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody and if it is a sin then let god deal with it. Judge not lest ye shall be judged, right?

Sports world demonstrates a dramatic racial bias.

There are some white people who like to think that racism isn't as much of a problem as it is an excuse. With so many regulations enacted on behalf of minorities, most companies won't risk the penalties associated with imposing racial bias. In some cases, these people would argue, the well-intentioned goals of affirmative action actually impose racism on whites..

That's true to a degree, affirmative action has certainly helped minorities gain access to government jobs and certain educational opportunities, and whether or not it's fair or even beneficial can be debated, but racism is still a very ugly reality in this supposedly great nation of ours. It could be worse and not all that long ago it was. Much worse. But that doesn't mean we should ignore a glaring problem.

We should be cautious in drawing parallels between the real world and the sporting world. Life in the real world is nothing like life in the sporting world. Personalities are different and the tasks at hand rarely compare in spite of so many executives struggling to liken the mundane world of day to day business to the exciting world of athletic competition.

When it comes to race relations in this country, however, the sporting world has been a wonderful study of where attitudes lay. Jackie Robinson broke the racial barrier in baseball, which was the most popular sport in the country at the time. He traveled a rocky road but he kept his head down and eventually won the hearts of fans. He showed whites that there wasn't anything to fear and inspired blacks to rise up and fight racial injustice. More black players followed and their success made it easier for white coaches and athletic administrators to embrace black athletes in other sports.

It wasn't easy, and it took a while for every sport to become fully integrated. It wasn't that long ago that the so-called experts firmly believed that black athletes lacked the mental ability to be successful quarterbacks in the NFL and fans are quick to villainize a black athlete who steps out of line. However, we have reached a point where athletes are not judged by the color of their skin, but rather the ability they bring to the playing field. Nobody hesitates at the prospect of drafting a black quarterback anymore and nobody thinks twice about signing a black athlete to a lucrative endorsement contract.

However, the bias is still there. This year 10 NFL teams found themselves looking for new head coaches. As of this moment all but one of those teams has hired their new coach with the Oakland Raiders supposedly holding out for Steelers' assistant coach Ken Whisenhunt. If they make that hire, which seems likely, that will conclude the hiring frenzy with all but one of the hires being white. The lone black coach given a job this year hardly counts as a breakthrough hire as Herm Edwards simply transferred from the Jets to the Chiefs. No new black coaches made the final cut.

The final numbers really aren't that bad at first glance. Of the 32 NFL teams six (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Arizona, Kansas City, Chicago and Indianapolis) feature black head coaches but in a league where the majority of the players are black and have been for over 30 years 19% doesn't cut it. Not when most NFL coaches have at least a few years of playing experience under their belts.

The NFL, however, is painfully aware of the paucity of black coaches and is proactive in developing programs that help bridge that gap. That is not the case in the NCAA. Which might explain the availability of black NFL coaching candidates. There are 117 division 1-a programs but only three black head coaches. What's even more alarming is that there are only about a dozen black assistant coaches who have attained the rank of coordinator, which is typically the stepping stone to a head coaching position. Unlike the NFL, the NCAA is not working hard to change that. The NCAA simply doesn't have any authority to oversee the hiring practices of member universities.

The problem is not one of malicious racial bias. There is no reason to believe that athletic directors and college presidents are conspiring to deny black coaches access to employment at the collegiate level. More likely the problem is an issue of latent racial bias or simply a matter of racial loyalty. In some rare cases there might be a calculated decision to exclude black candidates. Universities depend on contributions from community leaders as well as wealthy alumni and, particularly in the deep south and the Midwest, the people holding those purse strings might harbor a little bias and unduly influence the university in selecting a white candidate. But by and large, this is not standard practice. The name of the game is winning. Period.

Some believe this sort of unintentional bias is what influenced Notre Dame to break tradition and send Ty Willingham packing before he had fulfilled his five year contract. Notre Dame supporters like to think that the unexpected move had more to do with a sense of urgency in making room for hot coaching prospect, Urban Meyer, but Meyer seemed to have absolutely no interest in the Notre Dame job. Ty Willingham was the first Notre Dame coach to be fired for performance before he had completed his first five years on the job. Hopefully Ty's skin color was only coincidental but you have to wonder. Bob Davie did a pretty lousy job at Notre Dame and he got five years. By contrast Ty Willingham seemed to be doing a better job than his predecessor and he was given his walking papers.

Notre Dame isn't alone. When Ohio State fired John Cooper the candidates interviewed as his replacement were all white. Ohio State seems to be quite equal opportunity with former Heisman hero Archie Griffin holding a key role in the athletic department and Ohio State did hire an African American athletic director to replace the departing Andy Geiger, but you'd still figure that Ohio State would have interviewed a black coaching candidate or two. Alabama stirred up a hornets nest when they passed on hiring Sylvester Croom as their head coach in favor of the less qualified Mike Shula, but it's hard to believe that Alabama would have allowed race to be the deciding factor.

It's staggering to think about it. In sports race is no longer an issue on the playing field. The Heisman trophy is awarded to the best college football player in a given year and since Ernie Davis shattered the color barrier back in 1961, 24 of the next 44 winners were black. When Rush Limbaugh took a cowardly back door jab at the significance Donovan McNabb's race played in his popularity, fans expressed their outrage and the obese blowhard was forced to resign immediately or suffer the humiliation of being physically thrown out of the ESPN studio by Tommy Jackson.

That's why it's impossible to believe that the dearth of black head coaches in college and professional football is a calculated decision. I simply can't imagine that anybody conscientiously chooses to exclude a black candidate from contention. The racial bias being applied is not malicious.

If the person making a decision is white, he or she is automatically going to feel more of a kinship with another white person and if everything else is equal the white candidate is going to get the job over the black candidate. It happens in sports and it also happens in everyday life.

In spite of laws prohibiting discrimination African Americans are denied employment, promotions and recognition for accomplishments for no other reason than race, even though the people responsible are completely unaware they are discriminating. In some cases the racial bias is blatant and clearly a violation of civil rights legislation, but in most the racial bias is all but impossible to prove.

That's the case in the NCAA and the NFL. There's no documentation that substantiates any racial bias, but at the end of the day when you crunch the numbers you have no other explanation. White people still call the shots and black people get left out in the cold.

So how can we rectify this? How can you possibly address racial bias when it is not intentionally applied? The solution lies within individual honor. Whites, particularly those in positions of power, should force themselves to examine race whenever it is a possibility. Whether you're hiring you're next football coach or an assistant sales manager, you have to stop and ask yourself what you would do if every candidate was the same color. If you have a reservation about a black candidate you have to consider if you would have that reservation if he or she happened to be white.

People do it all the time. The black applicant is a job hopper while the white guy is ambitious. The female prospect is emotional while the male counterpart is passionate. If we are ever going to find true racial harmony in this country we're going to have to be honest with ourselves. Until we do we've got problems and very little to be proud of. The NFL and NCAA simply reveal the ugly truth. The question is whether or not we will accept it and take action to correct the problem.