The case of the crime-committing fetuses

Liberals are currently firing both barrels at former Education Secretary and current radio host Bill Bennett for saying that aborting black children would lower the crime rate.

Well, he did say that. But it's been horribly taken out of context. The entire exchange actually went thus:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Liberals are all in a huff for a number of reasons. Many think he's actually advocating aborting black children. These people are, as they say, stupid. Or, perhaps worse, politically opportunistic. Bill Bennett is not advocating aborting black children. He even says so in the sentence directly following his controversial statement. In fact, Bill Bennett is a staunch opponent of abortion.

Then there are those that are outraged that Bennett, they claim, believes that black people cause crime. So? Black people do cause crime. 44% of prisoners in this country are black. Anyone who would try to argue that black people DON'T cause crime would be delusional.

Of course, every race has criminals. Some 34% of prisoners in America are white. Aborting all the white babies in this country would lower the crime rate, as well -- though arguably not as much as it would if all black children were aborted. Aborting every baby of ANY race would lower the crime rate. It would also lower the occurrence of car accidents, drug addiction and cancer, simply by virtue of the fact that there would be fewer people in the country.

Criminal tendencies are better predicted, however, by socio-economic status. That is to say, poor people commit more crime. And it just so happens, that black people in this country are disproportionately poor. But would Bennett’s comments have been better received if he’d used the word ‘poor’ instead of ‘black’? Certainly not.

But what I find most interesting about the whole ordeal is the concession by liberals that these black children would be alive if they hadn’t been aborted. Isn’t this a tacit admission that a fetus is a person? I mean, if they’re conceding the point that abortion on a large scale would have ANY effect on society, are they not also conceding that an abortion is an end, or at least a pre-emption, of a life?

And if that’s the case, how can these people continue to defend such a practice, let alone make it a major tenet of their political philosophy? It’s one thing to believe that a fetus isn’t really a person or a life -- I disagree, but at least it’s consistent in defending the practice of abortion.

It’s something completely different to defend abortion while admitting that it prevents people from being born. It’s morally repugnant at worst, inconsistent at best. And if there’s one that irritates me in politics and philosophy in general, it’s inconsistency.

Holy crap I got a by-line.

It's pretty much old hat by now, but I also wrote these gems for today.

In other news of pointless things liberals do...

A few days ago, Brett asked me to comment on the misappropriation of funds in New Orleans that were supposed to be earmarked for levees. So here goes.

First of all, New Orleans, and Louisiana as a whole, has historically had an incredibly corrupt government...almost to the point of satire. In other words, it would be comical if it weren't so true and pathetic.

So it should come as no surprise that federal money earmarked for levee maintenance and improvement was misused and misappropriated for various pet projects of the various governments. Even the frigging Orleans Levee Board is spending money on stuff that has nothing to do with levees.

Drudging up actual examples of such misuse has actually proved quite difficult, but the main ones floating around have been $2.4 million spent on a fountain memorializing Mardi Gras. Some $15 million more was diverted to riverboat casinos.

But how much money was diverted and where it went really isn't the main problem, and the fact that federal funds for levees had been reduced in recent years really don't matter at the end of the day.

There are several reasons for this. First of all, they weren't even really trying to improve the levees. Second of all, even if they had all the money they needed/wanted, the process of strengthening the levees to the point that they could've withstood a storm like Katrina would've literally taken decades, simply because of the sheer mass of the project. Some estimates put the time necessary to complete the project in the neighborhood of 25 years. Factoring in the fact that government never does anything on time, they would've had to start the process in the frigging Carter Administration to protect against a hurricane a month ago.

But no, it's Bush's fault. Just like 9/11, global warming, and poverty, blame gets put on George W. Bush for not reversing a disaster that he not only has limited power to effect in the first place, but was put into motion -- or not, as the case may be -- years before he assumed office. Mmm...I love the smell of political opportnism in the morning.

I'm so overcome with grief, but this kinda tickles...

Laugh it up, Chuckles. You look like a moron.

Explain to me how sitting in a crosswalk and blocking traffic does anything to advance your cause or memorialize your son's death. I realize that people grieve in unusual ways, but giggling while you get arrested seems to completely bypass grief and move straight into self-aggrandizing grandstanding. Get over yourself. You're doing more to unite your opponents than you are your comrades. And yes, I mean comrades.

So you want a revolution? -- First hand observations from an 'anti-war' rally

"Stop bitching and start a revolution" read a group of mass-produced t-shirts at today's 'anti-war' rally in downtown D.C.

Despite a night of heavy drinking last night (with my boss, no less,) I decided to push through the hangover, roll out of bed and make my way down to the White House to observe this 'revolution' first hand. In an attempt to ensure that I wasn't mistaken for someone actually attending the rally, I showered, shaved, and put on my Israel Defense Force t-shirt before walking downtown.

As I got closer to the site of the rally, I felt myself going back further and further in time. One I made it to the actual site of the rally, it was officially 1969.

There were several speakers on a stage set up on what's called 'the Ellipse,' which is a large field (appropriately elliptically shaped) slightly southwest of the White House, northwest of the Washington Monument and Capitol. I decided I'd play journalist while I was there, so I brought my notebook with the intention to write down the more outrageous things I saw or heard. In less than an hour, I'd already managed nine pages of material.

The first sign to catch my attention read 'I want my country back. Impeach Bush now.' This was quite curious to me, as I don't remember a time when the extreme left ever 'had' this country. It would be more accurate to say that they just want 'their' country. But I digress.

Many liberals get defensive when the 'anti-war' movement in this country gets labeled as 'anti-American,' but precious few conclusions can be made when their representatives take to the microphone and say things like 'With your help, American society will collapse!' to which the attendees answer with enthusiastic cheers.

To call this rally an 'anti-war' rally would be a misnomer. In typical liberal fashion, it was actually a general protest with many targets, with George W. Bush being the largest one. There were also PeTA pamphlets being handed out, protests against Israel, the IMF, the Cuban blockade, the occupation of Haiti (huh?), pro-abortion signs, gays rights supporters, and people protesting for 'affordable housing.' Again -- huh?

The Iraq war wasn't even mentioned until about the third speaker I saw. The second speaker I heard, which was actually the first one I heard from beginning to end, went into a 60's-style rant about the 'occupation' of 'Palestine' (I use quotes because there is no Palestine, and thus it cannot be occupied.)

She went so far as to say 'when we march, let's say 'free, free Palestine!' and 'I want an intifada!' For those of you that don't know, the 'intifada' is the terrorist campaign waged by the Palestinians against the Israelis that mostly targets civilians.

The speaker also shouted 'George Bush is the devil!' and the crowd cheered in approval. I laughed, if nothing else at the sheer absurdity of it all.

The next speaker was a member of some Muslim American advocacy group. He lamented the fact that the U.S. can 'get troops quickly to Iraq, but not to New Orleans.' I had to take issue with this, as from the experience with my various family members being deployed to Iraq, I know that it takes at least 3 months from getting orders to setting foot in Iraq. So no, we can't get troops quickly to Iraq, and certainly not any faster than we can get them to New Orleans.

He went on to say that 'we who believe in freedom cannot rest until [Bush is stopped].' I find this a curious statement, as only the most delusional leftists will claim that places like Afghanistan and Iraq were bastions of freedom before America showed up.

Among his other odd statements were 'Muslims in America live in a concentration camp of fear,' which in and of itself is befuddling, as it is my understanding that fear does not cause forced labor and genocide. He also used the liberal stalwart saying that 'we support our troops, we want them to come home.' I've never understood what this is supposed to mean, as fighting wars are what troops are for. Saying you support them, but not their purpose is like saying you support dentists, but not fixing teeth.

Then perennial Presidential candidate and general kook Ralph Nader took the stage. By this time, the crowd around the stage had diminished considerably, as they were anxious to start marching around the city. But I stuck around for a few minutes before I went to observe the march myself.

The craziest thing I heard Nader say was that this government had been 'hijacked by a small fleet of war mongers...' Yes Ralph, hijacked by a small fleet of warmongers. Not elected with 59 million votes, no no, hijacked.

I wasn't sure where the march was going to start, but I inadvertently stumbled upon it just as it was starting. Near the beginning of the march route, there was what appeared to be a Marine (as there is no such thing as a former-Marine) standing on the sidewalk with a sign that read 'Peace sucks. Join the Marines. Uurah!' I approached him and told him he was doing a fine job, he approved of my shirt and we exchanged handshakes and pats on the back. During our exchange, many of the marchers directed their attention toward us with their hands extended with two fingers upright, saying 'Peace not war...' The Marine and I kindly informed them that the hand gesture they were using was actually 'V for Victory, not peace.'

There were some thought provoking signs among the marchers, the first of which was 'Peace in the world begins with peace in our hearts,' followed by 'Love your enemies.' It seems to me that this sentiment would be better directed at those strapping explosives to themselves and killing civilian women and children. But to each his own. (I apologize for the crappy quality pictures, I only had my cellphone camera.)



In the middle of the crowd, there was a guy with a bullhorn saying 'Fund levees, not war.' The political opportunism was almost staggering, as I don't think anyone was clamoring for such until last week. He then made a curious request of the marchers. After saying that this march costs a lot and no one else is paying for it, he urged the marchers to make donations and to 'be powerful with your money.' This kinda made me chuckle, first of all because it seemed to assume that liberals are used to spending other people's money, plus it was funny to me hearing obvious liberals, who routinely lambaste the influence of money, urging their own to do exactly what they despise. Mmm...hypocrisy is so delicious.

I followed the march for a while, before breaking off and making my way over to the front of the White House where I just walked around among the more stagnant crowd that had amassed there.

The stereotype that the anti-war movement is made up of aging hippies and rich white kids is absolutely true. What pissed me off the most were the young teenagers, no older than 16, with mohawks and bandana masks that were desecrating the American flag. A close second to this were the aforementioned aging hippies that would bring their young children to the rally. I saw a child in a stroller holding a sign to the effect of 'No blood for oil,' as well as a young girl no older than five wearing a pro-abortion button on her shirt.



The inherent and absolute silliness and absurdity of the anti-war movement in this country has never ceased to amaze me. There was a small 'marching band' parading around in a circle. Not too out of the ordinary, except for the uniforms, which consisted of short shorts and wife-beaters. One of the male drummers decided to enhance his uniform with white silk stockings with lace and garter belts.



Not far from this lovely sight was a rather overweight female wearing frilled panties with fishnet stockings. To her ample posterior a sign was taped that read 'Ruffled panties for peace.' Brilliant.

Floating around the crowd was an inflatable doll of George W. Bush with a Pinnochio nose, to which someone had maturely applied a condom.

A group of young men were walking around with balloon animal hats. Why? I have no idea.



As I mentioned earlier, this rally wasn't so much against the war as it was against the President. The level of hatred and vitriol was incredible, but sadly not surprising. There was a game being played called 'Pin the blood on the Jackass' in which people were invited to pin red drops of blood (construction paper) to an rather unflattering picture of the President.

There were also several signs that attacked the President personally, the most noticeable of which were:

"Abort Bush."
"Fuck the war and Fuck Bush"
"9/11 was an inside job"
"George Bush you're an asshole. Cheater. War whore. Thief. Smirking cokehead chimp. Dick Cheney's boy toy."
"Bush sucks Satan's cock."
"Rick Santorum is Bush's Monica Lewinsky"

After seeing these lovely contributions to the political discourse in America, I decided it was time to head back to my apartment. A block or so away from the crowd, there was a very intricate 'display' that involved 3 people. One person was dressed in a Satan costume and holding a marionette whose strings were attached to a person in a Dick Cheney costume holding a marionette whose strings were attached to a person in a George W. Bush costume wearing a crown and a sign that said 'the lying king.' Again...I thought this was an anti-war rally.

With all the short shorts, silk stockings, ruffled panties, balloon animal hats, costumes and vulgar placards, I found myself wondering if these people expect to be taken seriously. I certainly wasn't, and I don't think any reasonable person would, either. More importantly, I wonder if the reasonable members of the left in this country are pissed off that these people are out there making them look like fools.

Whether liberals like it or not, these people are becoming the standard bearers for their movement. If there was a similar scenario on my side of the political spectrum, I would be livid. After witnessing first hand the venom and lunacy present among the left when they think they're in safe company, I have to wonder if it shames what reasonable liberals there may be into distancing themselves from their loony brethren.

The last sign I saw as I left downtown put a smirk on my face. It read 'Feel the Love.' I smirked because it was quite symbolic of the rally as a whole. Not because it said 'Feel the Love,' but because it was appropriately crumpled and stuffed into a trashcan.

A farewell to reason, part II

I've been lamenting what I see as the American inability to have a civil, productive political discourse for quite a while. At the ripe old age of 22, I often find myself wondering...has it always been this way?

I consider myself more politically steeped than most people I know, if nothing else than because I started following politics at such a young age, and I can't remember a time when the tone of debate in this country was so regressed and literally pathetic.

I suppose it started with the election in 2000 when the electorate was so evenly divided that one vote on either side could be the difference between a victory and a loss. Then, following 9/11, there was an unprecedented sense of unity -- for about 5 minutes. After that, political civility in this country reached an all time low.

Extreme, scathing rhetoric is evident on both sides, but seems to be more pronounced on the ideological left. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of hatred directed at the President and conservatives in general. It's literally like a contest to see who can spew the most hateful sentiment.

It's quite sad, really. Not just because it's evidence of the uglier side of human nature to waste so much energy on blind, useless hatred, but mostly because it starts a massive downward spiral of rhetoric that usually ends up with both sides with their proverbial fingers stuck in their ears, yelling 'Lalala I can't hear you.'

Hatred is not a platform. Opposition for the sake of opposition is not a platform. Hate Bush, Michael Moore, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, etc. to your heart's content. But if you don't have an alternative vision to offer the American public, odds are you're not going to get anywhere.

That's why John Kerry lost the election. Pretty much the only thing he had going for him was the fact that he wasn't Bush. Liberals would've much rather had Howard Dean on the ticket. His harsh, abrasive rhetoric against the President and his admission that he 'hates Republicans and everything they stand for' made liberals everywhere euphorically gleeful because he validated what they'd been feeling deep down inside since the 60's but had been afraid to say. But then even the liberals bailed on Howard Dean, because even they knew he could never be elected. That doesn't mean, however, that anyone changed their feelings...they just changed the packaging.

Currently, hating Bush, bashing Republicans and saying things like 'No blood for oil' is chic. Liberalism is en vogue. You're not cool unless you think Bush is a war-mongering moron. (Side note: I've always had problems resolving how President Bush can be BOTH a moron AND an evil mass murderer. The two seem to be mutually exclusive. Hitler might have been evil, but you're not going to get an entire country to go along with a plan of world domination and genocide by being a bumbling dumbass. It's one or the other.)

But the more the liberal movement, or any political movement, continues to deny reality, the more isolated they're bound to become. Eventually, they're going to end up like Hollywood at the Oscars. They're just going to get together, pat each other on the back, and make themselves feel important. But no one's really going to care. Most Americans will just ignore them.

George Bush is not a mass murderer. He's not a racist, and he's not to blame for black people being poor. And basing an entire political movement on such ideas and the hatred that goes along with them not only demeans the political process in America, but it demeans the movement itself and anyone who's a part of it.

There's a cheesy old cliche that says something like 'if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.' It's at least somewhat applicable in this case. If you're not offering any viable alternatives, your hatred of the President and his party is utterly useless and juvenile. You're not only making an ass of yourself, but you're preventing any meaningful discussion from taking place.

I may well be a conservative, but I'm also a very reasonable person. I'm all in favor of discussing disagreements, but 'I hate Bush, you're a Nazi, and I want to kick you in the face' is not a response to 'what would you do differently?'

Climate change on Mars? But...but...but George W. Bush isn't President of Mars. There aren't any Americans on Mars. How can this be possible? It certainly isn't the fact that climate change might be a natural process that happens on every planet in the Universe...

Card-carrying Neo-Con

A new political buzzword has emerged in American politics in recent years, and since its emergence it has been used almost exclusively in a derogetory or slanderous manner against the people it supposedly describes. I didn't know, nor did I really care what this new buzzword meant — until it started being used to describe me.

'Neo-con,' an abbreviation for 'neo-conservative,' doesn't exactly give much explanation in and of itself, and the fact that it is usually prefaced with adjectives like 'crazy,' 'radical,' or 'rabid' doesn't provide many clues as to its definition.

So, I set out to find the definition myself. In doing so, I found that the definition depends heavily on who answers the question 'what is a neo-con?'

I got several different answers, and a few of my favorites included:

-A liberal that has been mugged by reality
-Someone that cares a lot about morals
-Someone that goes to war for Israel
-Someone that goes to war for oil
-Someone that goes to war
-'Neo-con' is a compound word, 'con' meaning 'conservative' and 'neo' meaning 'Jewish'

The first and last answers greatly entertained me, and the ones in the middle seemed only to be descriptions, albeit woefully over-generalized ones, of what neo-cons do, not what they are.

As far as the 'Jewish' remark, it certainly explains people like David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz — but doesn't really do much for President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice.

Thus, I honed in on the coyly tongue-in-cheek (is that redundant?) idea that neo-cons are former liberals that had been 'mugged by reality.' That is to say, they were liberals until they saw the intellectual gap between their goals and the means they were using to achieve them. In other words, their intellectual honesty would not allow them, in good conscience, to continue on that political path because they knew it wasn't leading them where they wanted to go.

Personally, I like to consider the 'neo-conservative' movement to be one that advocates liberal ideals through conservative means.

As absolutely crazy as it may sound, many of the ideals that I hold are generally thought of as liberal — but liberal in the classic sense of liberty, not liberal as in the redistribution on wealth, socialization of services, or abortion on demand.

During a recent dinner party I posed a question to a politically apt acquaintance (who just so happened to be a Jewish Democrat) — 'why is it that so many Jews vote Democrat?'

This question has always intrigued me, because if there's any group of people that focus on tradition, morality, and the rule of law — the conventionally accepted basis of conservatism — it's the Jews.

The answer he gave to me, however, was equally as intriguing.

'Jews are just generally more concerned with social justice.'

His answer was rather jarring, but not wanting to make the situation unbearably awkward, I bit my tongue despite the fact that I was offended on several counts. First of all, it seems to make the assumption that Republicans are NOT concerned with social justice. And second of all, it seems to make the assumption that any Jews that don't vote Democrat are somehow betraying their spiritual obligations. Neither of which, I believe, are true.

Despite the fact that I've voted Republican in the only Presidential election in which I've been eligible to vote, I still deeply care about social justice. It just so happens, however, that my idea of 'social justice' does not include massive entitlement programs. I fail to see the 'justice' in the fact that generation after generation of the urban citizenry in this country is poisoned by ineffective, ill-planned, and poorly implemented government initiatives. 'Justice' is not doling out checks that feed a vicious cycle of dependence.

I have the utmost respect for people with the intellectual honesty to admit when the 'party line' they are towing turns out to be wrong. If liberals and Democrats are truly dedicated to social justice, they would do well to admit mistakes in the last 60 years of policy toward the poor and try a different approach.

The same is true for matters of international politics. If liberals and Democrats, as they claim to be, are truly dedicated to religious freedom and other basic human rights, they should be standing in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and every other nation where its citizens are persecuted, tortured, killed, and otherwise denied the basic human rights for which these liberals supposedly stand.

Instead of the wide-eyed alarmists currently in this country claiming that Bush aims to make homosexuality illegal and force his religious views on Americans, perhaps they should focus their attention to places where homosexuality truly is illegal upon punishment of death, and places where the religious views of the leadership are in fact imposed on the citizenry, again, upon punishment of death.

Sadly, it seems that the left in this country, and most other Western countries for that matter, would rather use the Iraq war as political fodder against their political opponents rather than use it as an opportunity to spread the values which they supposedly espouse.

When opposition to war and a political movement leads people to abandon their ideals for the sake of political manuvering, they have lost all credibility and moral authority for their cause.

If defining 'social justice' as 'actually helping people' — and coming the realization that not all international conflicts can be solved with hugs and flowers — makes me a neo-con, well, where do I get my membership card?

I came into the office this morning only to find it dark and empty. Not thinking it too terribly unusual — as I was expecting my boss to be out anyway — I followed my normal routine of getting a copy of the paper and checking my e-mail, at which point I read the following:

Charles,

I think I forgot to tell you that I will be at a Cato seminar all day today. You can reach me on my cell at (703) ***-****. Patrick will also be out, so you will have to run the entire editorial dept. yourself today. (Hope all the power doesn't make you crazy.)
See you tomorrow!

Barbara

Something doesn't seem right about that. I would think they'd want to send the least senior person, i.e. me, to a Think Tank seminar while they did the business of actually running the department — not the other way around. But hey, whatever floats their boat. The only thing is, I don't really have anyone to boss around while I'm on my power trip, as there's no one else here. I suppose I could yell at Sara our lay-out girl when she rolls in about 2:00, or maybe someone at the copy desk. We'll just have to see.

I just get the strange feeling I'm being watched on closed-circuit television from an undisclosed location. Like Dick Cheney's bunker.

Moderation means no assassination

The whole political commentary thing was starting to get old, especially now that it's kinda my job. So, I'm gonna get back to what the 'original intent' of my blog was supposed to be, and use it as a depository for my quirky social observations and general commentary, a la Jerry Seinfeld. And just what IS the deal with airline food? And who makes those little plastic things on the end of shoe laces? And what are they called, anyway?

Don't get me wrong, there's still going to be a noticeable political tilt here, I was just starting to feel too much like a participant when I'd rather be an observer. As such, there have been a few general topics I've been knocking around in my head for quite a while, and now I suppose would be a good a time as any to let them out.

First of all, I'm going to start with the idea of political moderates. For the most part, political moderates piss me off. And not because we have different views or whatever, but because they're not really moderate.

There are several different kinds of 'moderates.' First of all, there are those who could really give a crap one way or the other about politics, so they're not going to get all riled up about much of anything. I'm fine with these people, because they are, by definition, moderate.

Then there are those that would be more accurately described as 'independents.' These are people that are for the most part apathetic, but do have some sort of interest in politics. They might favor low taxes, but also accept abortion, or vice versa. Whatever it is, on average they end up in the middle of the political spectrum. I'm fine with these people as well, as they're honest about what they are.

But then there are the people I like to refer to as the 'snobby moderates.' They're people that carry their moderation around like a trophy, turning their nose up to both sides of an argument. These people are known to say things like 'I'm not liberal or conservative, I'm in the middle. I'm moderate...' as if being a moderate in this case is any more intellectually rigorous or stimulating than the knee-jerk politicos they claim to be avoiding.

Simply coming out in the middle of every argument does not make you smarter that or superior to anyone. It makes you lazy and pompous. So shut up and form your own opinion instead of waiting for other people to form theirs and wiggling in between. That's stupid.

Winning the gold medal in the 'Piss Charles Off' olympics are the people that claim to be moderate but, in fact, are not. I'm sure there are people on the right side of American politics, but my experience has been mostly with people on the left.

I have several friends/acquaintances that claim to be politically moderate, but only do so to avoid being labeled the flaming liberals that they are.

During a band trip to Dallas, Texas (the city where JFK was assassinated, for those of you that went to public school) one such 'moderate' made the statement 'Why do only the good presidents get assassinated? Why don't we ever assassinate the ones that deserve it? Like the one we have now...'

Now, you're entitled to your opinion, however grotesque and disgusting it may be, but once you condone, if not justify, if not pine for the assassination of ANY freely and democratically elected leader, you've given up your seat at the 'moderate' table. You've made reservations at the 'extreme radical' table. Anyone wanna argue that Pat Robertson is a moderate? Anyone? Anyone? No? Just checking.

In the same vein, you no longer get to call yourself a moderate if you:

-Have ever said, or joined a facebook group called, 'George W. Bush is not MY President.' Because he is, regardless of your voting for him or not. Denying reality is not a 'moderate' thing to do.

-Adamantly support gay marriage. I'm sorry, but favoring something the vast majority of Americans oppose does not make you a moderate. At least not in America. If you want to be a moderate on gay marriage, move to France. Or northern California. They're pretty much the same.

-Have ever used the word 'hate' to describe your feelings of a politician. Much like the assassination bit, you have a right to your opinion, but don't say you're a moderate and turn around and talk about how much you hate someone. Hate is not something that good moderates do. Or is that Buddhists? Well, either way.

Bottom line, you only get to be called a moderate if you act like a moderate. If you act like a liberal, you should be called a liberal. If it's truly how you feel, you shouldn't be ashamed of it (well, you should, but you shouldn't mind being called one.)

Which will serve as a nice segue into my next observation. Stay tuned.

Yet another shining example of how government bureaucracy continues to screw...I mean, take care of, its citizens. How many more of these episodes is it going to take before people realize that the government should not be in the business of taking care of people? They suck at it.

Seriously. When's the last time you looked at something the government did, sat back and said 'Wow, the government really handled that well...'?

Yet we continue to be shocked and outraged when the government screws something up. Personally, I'd be shocked to learn that the government didn't screw something up. Some might call me a cynic, I like to think I'm more of a realist. To-may-to to-mah-to.

(That's right, I posted three times in one day. What? It was a slow news day.)

Hey, I was right...again...

I'm not normally one to shamelessly self-promote (ok, I am, but hear me out), and even this is going to make me feel a little smarmy, but I think it's warranted.

See, about 7 months ago, I did this whole spiel about the nuclear crisis with North Korea. And at the time, everyone was all worried that it was going to spark a nuclear war. Well, I knew it wasn't going to spark a nuclear war. At most, it was going to spark a regional arms race.

But mostly, I knew that North Korea wasn't going to even test, let alone use, any of their nuclear weapons. They were just using them as bargaining chips to get security guarantees and economic aid.

Well, 7 months later, they've agreed to give up their nuclear program, they haven't tested or used any nuclear devices, and in return they're going to get...that's right, security guarantees and economic aid. Man, I should be running this show.

But no one ever listens to me. I'm just some guy with a degree in international politics. I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about.

For the last time...

Since people seem to still be playing the blame game in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I feel somewhat obligated to weigh in one more time. But this time, I'm going to keep it short and simple, so even the most moronic, talking-point-parroting, conspiracy theorist can understand. So here's a handy little list of facts regarding Hurricane Katrina:

1. President Bush is not responsible for local evacuations. He has no more power to evacuate New Orleans, Louisiana than he does to evacuate Boise, Idaho.

2. FEMA is not designed for immediate response. They have 2,500 full-time employees for the entire country, with 4,000 standby employees, again, for the entire country. They're designed to coordinate/supplement existing relief efforts. As it turns out, there wasn't one in New Orleans.

3. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did not follow the New Orleans evacuation plan.

4. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco did not adequately deploy the National Guard to keep order after the storm.

5. The fact that some of the Louisiana National Guard was deployed in Iraq had nothing to do with them not being deployed before or after the storm. There are more than 11,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard. Some 3,000 of them are currently in Iraq. That leaves more than 8,000 still available for deployment throughout the state. They weren't.

6. Stealing food in water in an emergency is not looting. Stealing plasma TV's and Nike shoes is.

7. Black people in New Orleans were poor before George W. Bush was ever in office. And odds are, they'll be poor after he leaves office. To say that he doesn't care about them, one would also have to say that Clinton did not care about them, nor did any other President this century.

8. Federal funds earmarked for strengthening the levee system and otherwise preventing exactly what happened in New Orleans were misappropriated and misused by state and local officials.

9. There is no definitive proof that global warming exists. If it exists, there is no definitive proof that it is man-made, or at least man-affected. If it is man-made/affected, there is no definitive proof that it leads to more powerful hurricanes. Conceding for the sake of argument that all of these things are true, to claim that all of these effects could have been reverse in neutralized since January 20th, 2000 (the day that George W. Bush took office) is absolutely asinine.

10. If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for putting FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security. Adding federal bureaucracy to federal bureaucracy isn't going to make anything more efficient, as is now woefully apparent.

There. So that's how it went down. Can we please shut up about it now and talk about something else?

Oh, by the way, Afghanistan had elections over the weekend, and they went off without a hitch. Just letting you know, since you're not going to hear about it anywhere else.

It's people like this...

Yeah, I'll wear a shirt that shows a Klansman waving a confederate flag, with two black men being dragged behind a car, 'but I'm not a racist.'

Oh but you are. You're an embarrassment to anyone who truly understands the history of the Confederate Flag, as well as Southerners and white people everywhere. Oh, someone from Alabama in 1935 just called — they want their mentality back. Tool.

I hope you choke on your Slim Jim.

My name is Charles, and apparently, I don't care about black people

According to the media, environmentalists, 'civil rights leaders', peace activists, women's groups and Kayne West, President Bush is a right wing extremist, earth plundering, minority hating, war-mongering chauvinist that doesn't care about black people.

I'll deal with the right-wing extremist, earth plundering, war-mongering chauvinist charges some other time, however. Right now, I'd rather deal with the 'minority hating, not caring about black people' bit.

For whatever reason, conventional wisdom says that Republicans are more racist than Democrats. This has always confused me, first of all because it was Lincoln, a Republican, that freed the slaves. It was the Democrat majority congress that enforced and upheld segregation in the South. There is a former member of the Klu Klux Klan currently serving in the senate, and he's a Democrat from West Virginia.

But despite what otherwise might be common sense, Republicans still tend to get branded as racists.

Maybe this is because of the difference between what I refer to as 'hard bigotry' and 'soft bigotry.' I don't have any hard data for this claim, let's say that the majority of 'hard bigots' in the United States — that is, people who are outwardly racist, more likely to use racial slurs, etc — are Republicans. I would venture a guess these people make up less than 5% of the party, but they are what they are.

But it seems that Democrats are more likely to be 'soft bigots.' While they might not use racial slurs (anymore), they seem to be the ones more likely to think 'Oh, that poor [ethnic minority], he needs my help to succeed because he obviously can't do it on his own.' Thus, they proceed to patronize said ethnic minority until they too believe that they cannot succeed without the help of the government, especially when they've been victimized by years of institutional racism at the hands of the evil, racist Republicans (that freed the slaves and had no power to stop segregation).

I've been told all my life that I can't understand what it's like to be a black man, but I'm going to try anyway. It seems that I would be less offended by being called a 'cracker' or a 'honkey' than I would for someone to tell me that I needed help to succeed because I couldn't do it otherwise. Maybe it's pride or stubbornness, but the second I'm told I can't do something or that I have to do something, the more likely I am to do the exact opposite, if nothing else than out of spite. But I'm getting off topic.

If the liberal claim that Republicans, specifically George Bush, are racists, logic would follow that he would cut funding on poverty entitlement programs, as most poor Americans are black and live in the inner city.

But a quick perusal of what we in the media business like to call 'the facts' tells us that this is entirely not the case.

The 'First Black President,' Bill Clinton, allotted $191 billion in his 1996 budget for poverty entitlements. Whereas racist, elitist, only-cares-about-rich-white-men George Bush only allotted a paltry $368 billion dollars in his 2006 budget for poverty entitlements.

Wait what? You mean to tell me that President Bush has spent nearly TWICE the money on poverty entitlements than Bill Clinton? But everybody loved Bill Clinton!

'Now Charles,' I'm sure you're thinking, 'I'm sure that Bill Clinton's $191 billion actually made up a higher percentage of the Federal Budget at the time. George Bush might have allotted more money, but it probably takes up less of the budget.'

LIAR!

At the time, President Clinton's $191 billion accounted for about 12.2% of the federal budget. President Bush's paltry allotment is a mere 14.6%, that stingy bastard.

Now, you might expect me to be all excited about this and to be touting how President Bush is helping to end poverty, but I'm not going to. Because he's not helping to end poverty. He's helping to prolong it.

Everybody knows that old cliche 'give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.' Well, all President Bush is doing is giving away 368 billion fish.

I don't deny that poverty is an issue in this country. It is. Some 12.7% of Americans currently live below the poverty line. This is unacceptable, especially for the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization.

However, this poverty doesn't come from institutional racism as so many would like to believe. Rather, it comes from a culture of poverty that is characterized by laziness, lawlessness, and immorality. There is a disdain for education, no sense of responsibility, and no drive for improvement.

This culture is then compounded by politicians and pundits that celebrate this behavior and instill a blind, albeit passionate, sense of pride for a culture that should otherwise have none.

What is there to be proud about about a 70% illegitimacy rate? What pride is there in a 56% high school graduation rate? Why should an unemployment rate that is more than double the national average be celebrated? Not only that, but why are these things even tolerated?

The billions of dollars given every year to poverty entitlements do not work towards ending poverty. President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in the 1960's. 40 years and more than a trillion dollars later, we've made little or no progress.

Money is not the problem. We've got plenty on money. The problem is how it's spent.

Able-bodied and able-minded men should have no access to entitlement funds whatsoever. If you're able to work, you have no excuse not to. The same should be true for women without children. Women with children should be required to put their children in school, regularly take drug tests, and work. If they fail at these, they have no business being a mother, and their children should be placed in protective custody until the mother can get her act together.

Is this harsh? Of course it is. But it is not cruel or uncaring. Which is more cruel? Resigning the poor in this nation to a destiny of poverty, or helping them break the vicious cycle that continues to engulf generation after generation? Which is more uncaring? Putting children in protective custody, or leaving them in the care of demonstrably unfit parents?

Then again, what do I know? Apparently I'm a racist.

Warm fuzzy feelings = Massive financial liability

Since I'm too lazy right now to blog about anything original, I'm just going to post something I'm working on for work, so people can read as I intended it to be read, before it gets a severe lashing with a red pen. Enjoy:

In typical politician fashion, after the devastation in New Orleans became apparent, politicians from the Mayor of New Orleans through the President were making emotional promises that New Orleans would be rebuilt, and that it would be in better shape than it was before.

These promises naturally elicited passionate applause from the on-looking crowds, but after the cameras stopped rolling, several questions remained. The first, and perhaps easiest, question to answer is ‘can New Orleans be rebuilt?’ Of course it can. Rudimentary economics explains that anything is possible, the only obstacle is cost. This question, however, leads to more unpleasant questions that have yet to be asked in earnest. Will New Orleans be rebuilt? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

The answer to the first question seems to currently be a glorified shoulder shrug. It is simply too soon to tell. Regarding the cost of rebuilding, Hurricane Katrina is already the most expensive disaster in the history of the United States, and New Orleans was no doubt dealt the worse blow. Repair costs in that city alone are likely to be in the tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. Factoring in the strengthening of the levee system that will now be deemed necessary, the price tag climbs another several billion dollars, and the timeline extends literally decades (as estimates place the whole process at nearly 25 years.)

The enormous cost of this massive undertaking begs the question — where will all the money come from? It certainly won’t be the local government. New Orleans businesses and wealthy residents have relocated, leaving decimated an already insufficient tax base. Insurance payouts will be woefully inadequate as only 45% of New Orleans’ residences had flood insurance, and those that were insured were only insured at a maximum of $250,000 for building property, and $100,000 for personal property. There is also no guarantee that insurance payouts will be used to rebuild in New Orleans.

Without a tax base and with the majority of rebuilding efforts otherwise coming as out-of-pocket expenses, it would seem that any large-scale rebuilding efforts in New Orleans would come on the Federal Government’s dime.

The tendency in America toward ‘gesture politics,’ that is, legislation for the sake of Public Relations rather than for effective policy, leads to massive government expenditures — often known as ‘bailouts’ — for things that would otherwise not be self-sufficient.

These bailouts, in effect, reward bad decisions and poor management. Bad decisions such as building a city below sea level and surrounding it with water, or such as not acquiring sufficient flood insurance, and poor management such as the misappropriations of government funds that characterized the New Orleans government.

Such policies also tend to themselves be inefficient uses of government funds. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there was a great deal of lamentation of the poverty in New Orleans that was thrust into the national spotlight. There seemed to be little question, however, if the billions of dollars that would be needed to rebuild New Orleans and strengthen the levee system could be better spent in aiding the former residents of New Orleans now dispersed throughout the nation.

At their roots, these bailouts also undermine the basic fabric of America — the ideas of free-market and self-reliance. If people truly desire the rebuilding of New Orleans, they will support local tourism, start businesses there, even move to the city and become part of the tax base — in other words, market conditions will function properly.

If these market conditions are ignored, however, and the city is rebuilt with no economic basis to support it, it will become nothing but a massive economic liability. It is not a question of if New Orleans will once again be devastated by a natural disaster, it’s a question of when. Political correctness aside, the question needs to be earnestly asked, and earnestly answered — is good P.R. and a good gesture worth billions of taxpayer dollars?

The end is nigh

Ok, I'm not much of a dooms-dayer, but there's something going on in the world that really makes me believe that the Apocalypse may truly be upon us. And it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, the European Union, or the abnormally active Hurricane Season.

No, this is something much more horrifying. You see, the Vanderbilt Commodores are currently ranked second in the Southeastern Football Conference. Repent your sins. May God have mercy on our souls.

Four years removed, apathy abound

I don't consider myself a journalist as much as I do a commentator, and no self-respecting commentator would let an anniversary like this pass by without well, commentating.

Today I got a random, but what could very well be the most thought-provoking, text message to my cell phone. It asked if I thought that the anniversary of September 11, 2001 would ever become like that of Memorial Day. My first thought was 'well, I certainly hope not,' but then my second thought was 'but I can totally see that happening.'

It might not happen for a generation or two, but eventually, I'm pretty sure that September 11th will be no more important than December 7th. And that's a little disheartening.

This morning, I was watching coverage of the Memorial Services in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. As family members of the victims read names and said belated good-byes, the cameras panned the crowd of families as they embraced, wiped tears and consoled one another. Then I heard one family member say something particularly profound -- 'for us, every day is September 12th.'

And what did I do? Nothing. I like to think of myself as a patriotic person, and I completely support those families and the efforts to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again, but while they were mourning, I was laying on my futon staring at the television.

This made me feel dirty in a way. Because it got me thinking -- there are people dead. There are families that will forever be incomplete for no other reason than they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on a Tuesday morning.

I realize that dwelling on it could quite possibly take away from the gravity of the issue, but the fact that the anniversary of such an historic event passed so unceremoniously is not encouraging for the future of America.

Much has been made of the dichotomy and polarization of the American people, but I think it might be slightly misleading. In 2004, what was billed as one of the most important, or certainly the most intense election in a generation, only mustered 64% voter turnout.

I would venture a guess that 10-20% of those voters were staunch conservatives, and another 10-20% were staunch liberals. The other 24-44% were moderates simply fulfilling what they saw as their civic duty, and the other 36% of the country that is eligible to vote simply didn’t care.

Perhaps it’s a function of our government, but more likely it’s a function of our culture. People just don’t want to be bothered with unpleasant things like war, terrorism, homeland security, etc. They just don’t like to think about it, so they don’t.

Following 9/11, there was about 15 minutes of unity. Congress sang God bless America on the steps of the Capitol, there were rallies for America, and there was a sense of camaraderie that I’d never felt in America, and I haven’t felt since.

Those days are gone. Congress is back to its incessant bickering, rallies have turned against America (as usual), and people are once again apathetic and complacent. As much as I hate to admit it, I think it’s only a matter of time before September 11th is seen as just another excuse to take the day off and fire up the grill.

A farewell to reason, part I

I was in the middle of writing an entry about how I mourn the death of political discourse and intellectual honesty in this nation, and then I stumbled upon this shining example while at work. Here are some excerpts from a letter I received today — the kind of letter that makes my job exhausting, depressing, and discouraging.

I'm all for freedom of speech, I just wish there wasn't freedom to be a moron. Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, you shouldn't be able to spew hatred and lies like this:

CNN was the first cable news channel to air footage from the Superdome and from the Convention Center in New Orleans. Fox News was slow to depict the horror of people stranded inside the city. When it became impossible to ignore, that is, when it became obvious that other cable news networks were getting the scoop, Fox chose to show images of looting and violence in an apparent attempt to blame the victims rather than blaming the person in charge — the President of the United States...

The longer we wait [to blame the President], the more spin will come from the White House and from the director of FEMA and the director of homeland security, in attempts not only to cover up their failures but even more so to detract attention from their inability to identify with the everyday woman and man.

CNN news anchors and correspondents are softening their reports in light of the ubiquitous press conferences coming from Bush’s administration. More and more press conferences will come and reporters, despite their best intentions will become numb and finally lose their passion – just as it happened when we repeatedly watched Rodney King beaten until we were drained of all emotion.

Both Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco called for -- no, begged President Bush for help. (Editors note: uh, no they didn't) But where was George? On vacation, of course. Fund raising, probably. It has never been more obvious than now that there is never time in George's schedule for poor people or for people of color unless he is under great pressure from Rove and other handlers and he is politically compelled to engage the black community in what generally amounts to a mere photo opportunity.

George W. Bush is a disgrace to this nation.

I can't remember when our federal government has shown such racism and elitism as was evident in the first four days after hurricane Katrina hit land in the Gulf. I was born and raised in the South and I saw civil rights workers murdered, the slaughter of four little girls in Birmingham, and countless other acts of terror sponsored by my home state of Georgia and the state of Alabama under Lester Maddox and George Wallace. I've become well acquainted with and accustomed to the dual nightmares of poverty and state-sanctioned murder (which happens when the state turns a blind eye to murder).

Yet, despite all of this, I have never seen the federal government of the United States of America so openly show such blatant racism to its own citizens and to the entire world as I've seen during the onslaught of hurricane Katrina. It is an outrage.

Worst of all, Bush & Company will most likely get away with having murdered thousands of citizens, many people of color, simply by turning a blind eye to a real national emergency.

This is not the first time I’ve spoken openly against Bush and the Republican administration and I have suffered for it. Nevertheless, I must speak again. I don't fear Usama bin Ladin nor Saudi nationals who hijack planes and crash them into buildings. I fear the Republican Party for it has proven itself to be my personal enemy as well as the enemy of all Americans who work hard for a living but remain slightly above or below the poverty level. And New Orleans is graphic representation of what I'm talking about; New Orleans after Katrina is my fear made flesh and blood.

God bless Ray Nagin – he has my vote for President. God bless the angry news correspondents of CNN – they got guts. God bless the Congressional Black Caucus for they were the first to speak as one voice against the outrage. God bless Michael Moore, a fine American because he is not afraid to confront injustice. God bless Kanye West whose nervous and breathy testimonial said what is in so many hearts. So far, these five are among the few speaking truth.

And may God bless and keep those Americans who have suffered so horribly under the Bush administration’s elitism and uncaring attitudes toward its citizenry.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that. I was gonna finish my entry about the death of political discourse and intellectual honesty in America, but now I have the strange urge to slit my wrists and do jumping jacks, you know...just to get the blood flowing. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's ignorance, and by extension stupidity. With this in mind, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm in the wrong business.

Not that it's all that devastating that I haven't written anything in almost a week, but in case you were wondering, I haven't been purposefully neglecting my blog.

With being shorthanded at work, we're currently doing the work of 5 people with 3, and the news being what it's been recently, I'm frankly too emotionally exhausted by the end of
the day to piece together anything coherent/or meaningful. I swear, if I read one more heart-wrenching story about hurricane victims, I'm going to put a gun in my mouth. There's only so much utterly depressing material I can handle at a time. And last night's episode of Rescue Me certainly did NOT help matters.

It's with a little sense of irony that I'm about to write what I am, but bear with me.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an animal rights activist. I think PeTA is absolutely asinine to compare the food industry to the Holocaust. I have no problems with animals being bred for food, and I think veal is delicious. (And on a side note, I really don't have a problem with them being kept in those little boxes, either...as far as they know, that's what life is supposed to be like for them...)

I also have a problem with people who spoil their pets, try to psycho-analyze them, or otherwise place them on the same plane as human beings.

All that being said, it should be known that I also loathe the unnecessary killing/death/mistreatment of animals. As a hunter, I will only kill an animal that I intended to eat. And I will also swerve to miss a baby duck or bunny if they happen to be in the road. And I will feel guilty when said bunny manages to run right into my front tire when I'm going 75 miles an hour on the 10 Loop.

With all this in mind, there's a particularly heart-wrenching aspect of the evacuation of New Orleans. For whatever reason (and it better be a damn good one, because this is just sick) people are being forced to leave their pets behind when they evacuate.

There are things that I would not be able to live with having done, and I'm pretty sure telling a child, or anyone else for that matter, that they had to leave their beloved pet behind in a flood-ravaged, dangerous city, is one of them.

I can sit here in my climate-controlled, dry office, knowing that in about an hour I'll be headed home to my climate-controlled, dry, and food-stocked apartment, and say intellectually that these people are insane to even to consider staying behind in the aforementioned flood-ravaged, dangerous, toxic chemical-laden city for the sake of their pet — but I cannot in good conscience say that if I were in the same situation, that I would act any differently.

In fact, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that I would also have a hard time making that decision.

I absolutely adore my Jack Russell terrier, as does everyone else in my family. She's certainly as close to a member of the family as any animal is going to get. We don't even like to leave her outside when it's raining, or when we're going to be coming home after dark. So I simply cannot fathom just abandoning her in a place as destitute as New Orleans.

These people have already lost everything — most have lost their home, everything inside it, their cars, their jobs, everything — and we’re not letting them bring their pets? It’s cruel and sick on two counts. First, it’s cruel on behalf of the animals, as they will likely die of starvation, drowning, disease, or poisoning from contaminated water. And it’s cruel
on behalf of the people, because it’s like the officials are saying ‘Well, you haven’t quite lost everything yet…wait…ok, NOW you’ve lost everything…’

I like to think that those running the rescue operations and such know what they’re doing, but judging by the response so far, it leaves me with little faith. Maybe it's because animals can carry disease, or maybe there's not enough food for them, or something like that. Like I said, whatever the reason, it better be a good one because that's just heartless otherwise.

Oh my GOD...

The truth has no place in junk science, especially politically charged junk science

There have been several thoughts running through my mind in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I feel like I adequately expressed my disdain for the looters and the like last night, but I find myself consistently thinking about, and subsequently directing my ire toward, one group of people in particular.

Specifically, the opportunist, environmentalist nutjobs who don't even wait for the flood waters to recede or for the bodies to be counted before they start politicizing the worst national disaster in American history.

For one thing, I'm irritated by their staggering poor taste and utter lack of tact. But even that could perhaps be excused if what they were saying had any sort of basis in, or relevance to, the truth.

After reading blathering articles by Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and his ilk about the effects of global warming and how it's responsible for these sorts of disasters, I decided to do a little research, and what I found is quite curios.

First of all, for their theory to be true about global warming being directly related to both the volume and intensity of hurricanes, it would need to be assumed that the number of hurricanes striking the United States in, say, the last century, would have increased, and that these storms were more intense.

But, according to this handy chart put out by the National Hurricane Center, it would appear that the exact opposite is true. In fact, the 1990's were a relatively quiet decade as far as hurricanes go, with only 14 total storms, and 5 major storms -- half the number of major storms in the 1940's! Not to mention the fact that the number of both total storms and major storms have DROPPED since the 1940's.

Huh. Interesting. It's almost as if these people are...um, what's the word...ignoring facts in order to push a political agenda. But, nah...they wouldn't do that, would they?

And even if their theory was true, which it isn't, what would their plan be for dealing with it? Why, the Kyoto protocol, of course.

In doing a little research on that, I've found quite a few interesting tidbits of information.

First of all, it seems to be widely accepted that the global temperature has risen roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius in the last century, give or take. Or, since we're all Americans, 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit.

Even if the Kyoto protocol is successfully and completely implemented (which, as I said last night, it's not even close to happening...) estimates put its reductions between .02 degrees and .28 degrees Celsius, or again, since we're all Americans, somewhere between .036 and .504 degrees Fahrenheit. Wow. Better bundle up out there, 'cause instead of being .9 degrees warmer, it'll only be between .864 or .396 degrees warmer -- in 100 years!

This isn't even taking into account the fact that the United States would have to reduce its energy consumption by 25% in order to comply with the protocol. That's 25% for everyone. Are you going to drive 25% less? Watch TV 25% less? Use the internet 25% less? Heat/cool your home 25% less? Needless to say, that's never going to happen. I mean, I'm not going to do it, are you? Thing is, we don't have to. Because even if we did, it wouldn't matter.

Conceding that global warming is a problem, which it isn't, and even conceding that it affects the weather, which it doesn't, the Kyoto treaty is not going to do anything to stop it.

Global warming, or at least the prospect that human beings have anything to do with it, is absolute bunk. A billion years ago, this planet was a giant ball of molten rock, and not because we drove SUV's. 30,000 years ago, this planet was a giant sheet of ice, and not because we invented hybrid cars.

Natural disasters happen, and not because of anything we did. Between 6,000 and 12,000 people died in a hurricane in Texas at the turn of the century, should we blame that on Global Warming? Maybe it was all the methane from the horse-drawn carriages.

The bottom line is, we're arrogant to believe that we have so much effect over the Earth's weather patterns. But the fact remains that the weather, and yes, even the temperature cycles, are out of our control.

Exploiting a natural disaster as 'evidence' of unproven science, and using it to score political points and place personal blame on politicians is absolutely disgraceful, and might actually even be symptoms of a mental disorder.