Voters need to claim power.

The shell game that is American politics is more transparent than ever. Democrats scurried from the liberal moniker like rats from a burning tenement in elections past, now Republicans are scouting out new territory in the coming midterm election. Senate seats are up for grabs and battle lines have been drawn on all of the rhetorical issues but it is clear that nobody is willing to take a stand on anything critical. At least not this far away from the election.

Republicans who are safe in this election are trying to rekindle the blind sense of nationalistic pride that provided the party with victories in elections past and of course the issue of homosexuality is back in the crosshairs, but voters seem poised to think things through this time around and it has politicians, particularly those on the right very concerned. Eight years of right wing politics has destabilized a once burgeoning economy. Prices are up, wages are down and Americans are terrified that medical care might become a luxury. And then we have war. Not one of those romantic wars where the enemy is clearly defined and progress is easily measured, but a nasty little war against ambiguous foes who seem impervious to our ponderous might.

In the coming months battles will heat up. Republicans will have to decided whether or not it’s time to throw Bush under the bus and reach toward the middle to bring the ship back to even keel, or lean even further to the right and dump the whole shebang into the murky waters of ultra-conservative politics.

Democrats won’t have to stake out much of a position. Republicans have enjoyed a staggering degree of control in Washington for the better part of eight years and the results have been awful. They managed to blame Democrats for their shortcomings in 2004, but now voters aren’t buying that one. Fool me once...can’t get fooled again. While it would be an excellent time for the Democratic Party to make its move to restore credibility and honor to the maligned cause of liberalism, it’s obvious that Howard Dean is going to lay up and play it safe counting on the power of disenfranchisement to sway voters to the left.

As reasonable as such a position might be given the state of modern politics, it’s painfully obvious that this country needs a complete overhaul of the political process. The basic structure of the government is fine, but layer upon layer of cheap paint has been slapped over what was once a masterpiece of statesmanship. When you remodel an old house you don’t tear it down and rebuild it, you rip out the shag carpet, knock out a few walls and remove the old fixtures. You get rid of the junk and invest in some high quality accessories. That’s what we need to do with our government.

Sadly the two power parties aren’t rising to that challenge. They haven’t addressed anything truly patriotic or humanitarian in decades and the corruption hangs in the air like the fetid smell of black mold. For years the ruling class has worked hard to insulate its grasp of power in this country and the result has gotten us right where we are today.

This November voters can take the keys to the kingdom back and unite to vote for candidates who are brave enough to align themselves with a third party. Libertarian, Green...even communist. It’s not really about who we elect, it’s about who we shut out. Let Democrats and Republicans sit one out and see how they respond.

Rove Walks

Why is Karl Rove walking away from federal charges the least bit surprising? Was there ever any question that he would be protected from any reciprocity? Haven't these scandals always left the real culprits unscathed?

From John Adams and the XYZ Affair where bribes were paid to French diplomats, to Warren Harding's Teapot Dome scandal, deep rooted corruption has always gone largely unchecked in our government. They always put the screws to some patsy, but the power mongers who orchestrate everything walk. Who got nailed for Watergate? G. Gordon Liddy, a flunky FBI agent who was more than happy to blur the lines between duty and politics and a handful of henchmen, but Nixon resigned and was pardoned. Did any heavy hitters take the fall in the Iran Contra affair? Nope. Ollie North did some time but after he got out he was rewarded by those who appreciated him taking the fall and not naming names. He ran for office, writes a column and hosts a radio show.

What is surprising in this is the fact that Karl Rove is one of those peripheral characters who is normally offered up as a sacrifice when a scandal goes public. The Plame Affair has been linked to administration heavy Dick Cheney but as of right now the only head to roll is the one belonging to Scooter Libby. The fact that Rove is getting a pass reveals that he has a much stronger hold over this administration than anybody previously thought.

The Plame affair is a big deal. Valerie Plame's position as an active CIA operative was exposed in retaliation for her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, alleging that Bush was trying to offer bogus evidence as proof of Saddam Hussein's attempts to acquire weapons grade uranium. In fact, it took only a few days for Plame's CIA affiliation to be released after Wilson commented on the evidence.

It was a childish act of retaliation, but it sets a dangerous precedent. While it seems safe to assume that Plame wasn't a deep cover operative who was dispatched to corners of the globe to assassinate enemies and sabotage plans, the fact that CIA operations could be compromised for spite by the very men elected and appointed to guard against breaches of national security is cause for concern.

Furthermore this issue has challenged our understanding of the first amendment. Instead of accepting full responsibility for the leak, the Bush Administration has allowed some blame to be shifted on the press. Now there is serious discussion about imposing criminal charges on journalists who leak issues of national security.

That's just wrong. The press doesn't take an oath to uphold national security. In fact, the very nature of the press is the exact opposite. Reporters are supposed to be terrible at keeping secrets and nobody should expect anything they tell a reporter to remain in confidence. If that changes the press becomes censored and information falls under the control of the government. That is the ultimate form of corruption. The Bush administration is using the Valerie Plame affair, a scandal they created, to attack the media and limit the power of the press.

We expect our elected officials to uphold our national security. We trust them to hire qualified people to manage our nation's secrets and pay handsomely to ensure that said security is maintained through the worst possible scenarios. Valerie Plame wasn't a major player in the intelligence game, but the fact that this Administration would compromise the integrity of the CIA's security to retaliate against a former ambassador who dared to question the Bush Administration proves that our elected officials don't take security very seriously. How far will they go to lash out at their political enemies?

At the very least Dick Cheney should resign over this, but we know better than to expect something so appropriate. After all this is the same guy who got drunk, shot a buddy and hid from the police until his BAC was under control. Why would we expect Cheney to be a stand up guy and admit that he pulled the trigger on Valerie Plame? Even though Cheney should have taken the heat over this thing, we knew it wasn't going to happen.

The bottom line is that the Bush Administration has no qualms about being wicked. They lie, cheat and steal and don't care who knows it. They have surrounded themselves with those who never question them and even have a media network that happily obfuscates the truth for them. In spite of this country's long sordid past with scandal, this current administration has taken things to a new low. These guys aren't just corrupt, they're plain dirty and they don't care who knows it.

Vatican Revealed

I haven't read The DaVinci Code. The premise for the book seems a bit convoluted and the hype all but assures me I'll be disappointed in the story. I'm not particularly interested in seeing the Movie. Frankly I just don't like Tom Hanks very much. Somewhere along the line he went from being a funny down-to-earth guy to being an elitist prick. He's dull and annoying.

This is odd because I typically enjoy anything that takes a shot at religion and the stir created over this book/movie enterprise makes The DaVinci Code interesting to me. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I still don't want to see or read it.

Atheism makes people uncomfortable. Even your casual practicioners of religion bristle at the notion that there are people around who laugh at the notion that there is some divine being floating amongst the clouds keeping a detailed record of who gets into heaven and who burns in hell. God could save some time and just buy Santa's list. It's not the people I dislike, but the institution of religion.

The Vatican made The DaVinci Code a huge hit. Had it not been for all the priests, bishops, cardinals and of course the Pope pitching a fit over the book and the way it represents Catholicism, Brown's tome would have flitted around the bookshelves for a few months before fading into oblivion. Nothing sells like controversy and the cloistered clowns with the Catholic church were all to happy to oblige. Cha-ching.

By the time the movie was released the Vatican realized what a hit it had made out of a mediocre book so they ignored the movie, refusing to provide any hype that might help Tom Hanks snag some award ceremony hardware. They dismissed the movie as mildly interesting at first before it slipped into a dull pseudo-thriller. Had they taken the same approach with the book there probably wouldn't be a movie unless some network executive bought the option for a summer programming filler. Anything would be better than 10.5.

The Vatican proved that it is essentially the headquarters of a very large corporation. The success of the business entity is based largely on public relations and the Catholic church has always been quick to take action based on public appeal. Recently the Vatican demonstrated more of this opportunism when church officials revealed the pontifical position of the church on current social issues.

Riding that wave of fundamentalism that has become so popular, the Vatican nominated a hardline pope with Nazi ties and has firmly staked out a position against gay marriage and birth control. This includes condoms. The church is not OK with rubbers. How's that for a giant step backward? I suppose the next step will be buying the naming rights to the NASCAR championship series when Nextel's contract is up. Catholic Cup.

The Catholic church has been promoting an abstinence only policy for nearly 2000 years. It doesn't work. Devout Catholics can't keep it in their pants. That includes priests, bishops and cardinals. Maybe young boys are part of that abstinence program, but not all clergy members are pedophiles. In this day and age, how can the Catholic church take a stand against birth control? Especially condoms.

Millions of children are born into poverty and disease. AIDS is still rampant in third world countries and other diseases are developing that resist treatment. In Latin America exploding birth rates are overwhelming the education systems and entire countries are being crushed by illiteracy, increasing poverty and a culture of drug cartels that are happily exploiting the situation. Sadly, it is in these countries where the Vatican has tremendous influence that condoms make the most sense. People in these countries have three things to look forward to: sex, drugs and church. Sadly, they take what they want from all three. The Church doesn't stop them from having sex, because they confess the sins and ask for absolution, but the hardline stance against condoms keeps disease spreading and babies coming. Forgive me father for I have sinned...but I didn't wear a rubber!

Jesus Christ was the sort of guy who would have wanted to address the welfare of his fellow man, not petty social issues. It seems that the Vatican would better serve humanity and this God they are so kooky about by implementing strategies that work instead of clinging to the myth of abstinence or railing against a couple of homos getting hitched. Somehow I think Jesus would have been a lot more interested in finding a cure for AIDS, feeding the hungry and putting an end to war than rubbers and lesbian weddings.

But the Vatican isn't in the business of making the world a better place. It's all about putting butts in the seats. They need money and that money comes from the customers. Sure they call them parishioners, but money changes hands. It's a business transaction. That body of Christ isn't free. About 20 years ago the Catholic Church softened its position on issues like birth control. While the Vatican didn't condone it, they did make it clear that using birth control was not a sin. Now, with fire and brimstone becoming popular once again, the Vatican has tinkered with its image to make the church more appealing. People don't want an understanding god these days. They wants wrath and vengeance. The Vatican has seen the paradigm shift and they are moving fast.

Bigger than ever.

There are two ways you can get rich really quick in this country and before you ask, one of them is not purchasing property for no money down. No, the road to easy money involves creating a new diet or concocting some exercise plan. In fact, you can make even more money by recycling some passe trend and giving it a new twist. Take stodgy old Yoga, mix in some hip hop beats and call it something catchy like Booty Busting Yoga and you can pad your bank accounts for years to come. Just make it easy and painless. Americans are infatuated with losing weight and getting fit. Ironically, in spite of this obsession America keeps getting fatter. When you factor in the alarming number of half-starved immigrants allegedly pouring over our borders everyday the average girth ratio is astounding. Think what the percentage of overweight Americans would be if we closed the borders.

The problem is that Americans don't want reality. Losing weight and getting fit involve hard work, sacrifice and a little pain. That's unacceptable. Everybody wants some magic pill or magic surgery that will provide instant results with no effort. We all want to look sexy, but not if it involves things like breaking a sweat for 2 hours out of every week or skipping the Whopper Value Meal for lunch. But I have a coupon!
That's why that Atkins diet was huge for a while. The gimmick was this magical metabolic process that your body actuates when you cut carbs out of your diet and subsist on protein and fat. Since Atkins dropped dead due to cardiovascular complications the Atkins people have backed off of the caveman diet and taken a more balanced approach, but before they could brand the new program somebody took the idea and called it the South Beach Diet.

The fact is there is only one way to lose weight: Eat less. Yes exercise is important, but most Americans need to do more than walk 10,000 steps a day to offset the caloric surplus they consume each day. You have to stop putting food in your mouth. People who lost weight on Atkins and other "eat-all-you-want" clones over estimate the calories they actually consumed. The fact is protein and fat take longer to digest, thus making one feel fuller longer. Unfortunately the body is designed to run on carbs and forcing it to manufacture fuel out of protein or fat results in physiological problems that could have long term consequences. Like heart attacks, strokes and colon cancer. But enjoy the bacon, please.

Eating less is hard. Food is like a drug that you get addicted to. Starting your day off with a handful of granola thrown into a small cup of yogurt is not going to make you forget about all those mornings you gobbled a sausage biscuit with egg. It doesn't taste as good as a doughnut. Acquiring a taste for water instead of sucking down a 24 ounce bottle of Pepsi every three hours is not going to happen overnight and munching on steamed broccoli won't be nearly as satisfying as eating half a pizza. Cutting out all those Jelly Bellies isn't going to be easy either. Crack addicts have a much easier time getting clean. At least they have consequences to pay, getting fatter isn't illegal.

But maybe that's an idea. We can't jail fat people, but why not make them pay more for things? In some places they already do. Target is infamous for selling extended sizes at a higher price. A large shirt might retail for 10.99 but the XXL is 12.99. I'm suspicious that Target actually mislables their shirts to force more people into the extended sizes. That's something that needs to be looked into, but it's still a good idea. Why should leaner customers pay the same amount of money for half the fabric?

Why not extend this to other areas. Like license plates. People who own trucks pay more because trucks are heavier and capable of carrying more payload, but isn't a 300 pound woman carrying quite a payload? Fork it over, Bertha. Checking weight upon license renewal seems reasonable, how many people out there have a license that lists their weight a solid 30 pounds under what they really weigh? Isn't there a Homeland Security issue in play here? Is that fraud?

Insurance companies and employers would love to be able to adjust premiums based on weight. Not all fat people are unhealthy, but most are medical time bombs. Diabetes, arthritis, stress fractures, heart attacks, strokes, back pain. There are a host of problems associated with weight and giving companies the ability to pass the cost on to the individual would help fit people save money on healthcare. Sure, Tom in accounting could easily suffer a stroke in spite of being a competitive runner who only eats beef once a year, but insurance companies have done the math and they are willing to take a gamble on Tom. Take 100 fit people and 100 fat people and a massive percentage of those fat people are going to wear that insurance card out. You can carry that over to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as well. No benefits if you're morbidly obese. We can't have fat people draining public funds to tend to weight-related maladies when there are people suffering from illnesses that are entirely beyond their control.

It's disturbing. Every major retailer has electric carts for people to use when they shop. They aren't for disabled people, most disabled people already have the means to ambulate. How would they get into the store to use the cart? And sometimes the carts are taken advantage of by wobbly old ladies who can barely walk because of osteo-arthritis, but typically those carts are purloined by the ponderously pudgy. Hopeless fat slobs who simply have too much lard to lug around a store. And where do you find those fat bastards? Hogging up the free samples. You'd think it was rush hour in L.A. when they heat up a tray of those bagel bites. Oink, beep, oink.

Police departments around the country have taken to putting up these radar trailers that are supposed to shame speeders into slowing down. What they do is encourage people to speed up. Apparently everybody wants to know what their car's 30-60 time is. My mini van can do it in 6.2 seconds. The fact is those trailers don't work, but putting up scales in public places might. Set up a digital scale outside of McDonald's and watch the humiliation on people's faces as they waddle out. 244! Hey lady, that's beefy. 376! Yo, bro. I hope that's a salad in that bag. 72! Look! It's Lindsey Lohan. And she's got a ketchup packet!

Being fat isn't that bad if you can pull your weight. Lot's of people are heavy and many of us are genetically predispositioned to be big. But too many people hide behind that excuse. 400 pounds isn't big, it's disgusting. You don't have a glandular problem, you're a lazy slob. There's no excuse for it. You aren't disabled and you don't have mental problems. That's what's so infuriating about this issue. People don't want to shoulder the blame and there are countless quacks who are more than happy to tell them what they want to hear. So they keep getting fatter and fatter until they finally con some shrink in to prescribing bariatric surgery, which comes with a host of long term complications, such as a lifetime risk of gastric ruptures. If you think heart burn is bad...

It's impossible to make being fat illegal. Constitutionally it would never stand, but that doesn't mean that the general public should cater to this pity party for the portly. There was a time when fat people got teased and ridiculed. Hey, hey, hey! It might not have been nice, but is it only a coincidence that fewer people were obese? The humiliation inspired a lot of people to get into shape. There might have been a few suicides, but isn't that part of natural selection? Now we live in this touchy feely era of tolerance and while there is no place for racial or sexual discrimination, when did fat people qualify for PC courtesy? I guess it's hard to have thick skin when you stretch it to its limits.

Nobody should be judged or criticized for things beyond their control. There is simply no place for intolerance in these matters, but obesity, unlike homosexuality, really is a choice. Fat people choose to be fat because they choose to overeat. They indulge cravings every day and fail to account for those indulgences with a little exercise. So why should society go out of its way to accommodate them? Why should people who choose to put themselves into that position not be held accountable? We see nothing wrong with looking down on those freaks who pierce every square inch of their faces, so why not pass judgment on the slops who eat two Big Macs for lunch everyday? I didn't know cows ate meat.

The problem isn't fast food or marketing or video games. The reason so many Americans are fat is because we went too far in prohibiting meanness. Bring back the bullies and make fat uncool again. Then people will stop making excuses and start taking personal responsibility. America needs to end its love affair with pseudo-psychology and get back to being tough.

The NRA

In spite of the fact that I am a self-described pinko liberal I strongly support the second amendment. Not only do I believe Americans have a right to bear arms, I think they have a duty to arm themselves. And not with single shot muskets or antique dueling pistols either. I have no qualms about people owning fully automatic weapons with anti-armor tipped ammunition. I believe that I should be able to mount a fully functional .50 caliber machine gun nest on my roof. And I should be able to purchase that with food stamps. After all I am a liberal.

That's a pretty scary thought, isn't it? A 250 pound tree hugger packing heat. Puts those PETA freaks into perspective doesn't it? Instead of throwing red paint on your fur coat I just might shoot your fat ass and make a nice jacket out of you. Imagine the candor with which I would reply to Joan Rivers asking me: Who are you wearing? J-Lo

Ok, I'm not that extreme. But I'm not being sarcastic. In fact, quite a few liberals don't have an issue with the second amendment. Those of us who admire Thomas Jefferson know full well that he intended the people to retain power through detent. By arming the general public you provide them with the means by which to overthrow a corrupt government and start from scratch. The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots, and tyrants.

No sir, it's not about hunting or providing for a militia in times of national defense. Jefferson believed in open rebellion and keeping a cache of formidable weapons is every American's duty. I firmly believe that. Had Jefferson envisioned the scope of our military might in this day and age, he would undoubtedly endorse the public availability of fully armed battle tanks. So when the NRA called me asking for support you'd think that I'd be more than happy to cut them a check, right?

The National Rifle Association champions the second amendment. They lobby for gun owners rights, fight anti-gun legislation and even seek to educate gun owners on proper weapons handling. But they'll never see a nickel from me.

The problem is that they, like most conservative groups, wrap themselves in the flags of all the wrong causes. Literally. Typical NRA rallies feature wild-eyed militia members, Confederate flag waving white supremacist and ultra-conservative religious zealots. Instead of sticking to the simple facts of the second amendment, the NRA gets involved with too many people that have a so-called values agenda. Too often those values are so far outside of the spirit of the Constitution that the platforms are actually quasi-fascist. Interesting that history's greatest liberal (Jesus) was a Jew, while the world's most horrific fascist (Hitler) was a Christian. Ironic really.

The NRA stands for all the wrong things. They embrace all the wrong people. How can I send my money to an organization that financial supports politicians who happily rape the environment, denigrate the poor and ignore pressing social issues in favor of greedy corporate interests. How can I support the NRA when the clowns who sit on its board fail to hold those politicians who only pander to gun owners? How can anybody support an organization that refuses to distances itself from hatemongers and hypocrites?

Like abortion, the second amendment is a fine talking point during the election season, but once the votes are tallied the issue is shoved to the back burner and left to simmer until the next election. Nothing ever gets done. Politics as usual.

And that's how the NRA likes it. The NRA makes billions of dollars playing patty cake with the second amendment. If they are ever successful in securing the rights of gun owners, they won't need to raise all of that lobby money and Wayne LaPierre will have to log his fat ass onto Monster so he can find a real job. The NRA is a scam.

That's why they cater to the NASCAR demographic. White trash. A typical NRA rally looks and sounds like a KKK rally, except most of the participants aren't wearing white sheets nor are they burning crosses. Usually. NRA rallies are actually great recruiting events for the KKK since they attract so many like minded people. Stupid, angry white people.

The NRA loves this crowd because they are so-blinded by their own prejudices that they can't see through the NRA's nonsense. Nobody takes the NRA to task over where its money is spent. Nobody calls the NRA out on endorsing politicians who fail to sponsor gun-friendly legislation. People just keep forking over membership dues and buying bumperstickers with witty catch phrases like: This Car is protected by Smith and Wesson. Hardy Har.

So I fight my fight individually. If the NRA ever decides to stake a stand and let its members know that the NRA is about one issue and the rest of the garbage needs to be checked at the door, I'll fill out a membership card and pay my dues, but until they kick out the trash I'll go it alone. It's hard enough to protect my money from crooks. I don't need to hand it over willingly.

Oil Companies Raping land for Spite.

Two oil companies have suddenly decided to pick on Ohioans by exercising obscure mineral rights clauses that allegedly allow them to clear public forests that may or may not be encroaching on their rights of way. It started when Marathon/Ashland acquired an easement from Columbia Gas Transmission that allowed Marathon/Ashland to clear a 100 foot wide swath of land through some of Ohio's most interesting forest lands in the Hocking Hills region of southeastern Ohio. Not only were trees cleared, but pristine creeks and rivers were fouled when the pipeline was buried beneath the beds.

Obviously leaks and ruptures are a pressing concern, but more disturbing is the insistence that a considerable amount of land must be kept clear for dubious security matters. However, Marathon didn't stop there. They cleared municipal park land in Columbus to widen the pipeline easement and have even marked large trees in established Columbus neighborhoods for removal, leading people to question the motives as it is unlikely that any terrorist would be able to gain access to a pipeline buried deep beneath urban yards or metro parks. Somebody would see them and police would be called. Perhaps the portion of the pipeline that cuts through rural forest land would be at limited risk, but in the city? Not likely.

Columbia added insult to injury when they notified state officials that they intended to lay waste to hundreds of acres of forest in the Mohican State Park and Forest near Mansfield, Ohio. Park officials are skeptical that Columbia needs to clear a 300 foot radius around every well and question the need for clearing a 50 foot easement along its pipeline that serpentines throughout the park. The energy brokers aren't apologizing. They claim they have a right to protect their wells and pipelines and insist that the citizens are lucky because they have a legal right to clear more. Shouldn't it be these companies that feel lucky that they are permitted such intimate access to public land in the first place? Consider the record profits.

It's a real tragedy. Ohio has limited forest land available for recreational use and the most attractive areas are those that these two oil mongers have attacked so heartlessly. Columbia gave Marathon an outmoded easement in Hocking Hills to provide Marathon a free pathway on which to increase its profits and Columbia is setting its sites on one of the most intriguing hemlock forests Ohio has to offer in Mohican. Why?

If security is really a concern, it would be easy to partner with state and local officials to closely monitor the pipelines and wells. It's not as though simply clearing easements will make the areas more secure, time and money will still have to be invested in observation and that's on top of the money being spent on clearing the trees. So why not skip the tree cutting and ask the state to lend the help of it's rangers? See if local Sheriffs can be asked to drive an ATV through the rural stretches of the pipelines. If it really is a security issue, there would be no shortage of help.

It just doesn't make sense. There's no logic to it. Unless you factor in spite. Who loves the forests? Liberal tree huggers. By exercising perceived right of way variances during a political era of business friendly legislation, these companies can take a huge cheap shot at the liberals where it will hurt them the most: protected public land. Take that, pinko.

It's bad enough we have to put up with their comprehensive pollution that spoils our water, air and view when they erect their oil transport operations on private property. Now they can walk right on to public land and chop down grand old trees leaving tick infested weed beds in their wake. It's not about security, it's a vendetta. Plain and simple.

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?