Some thought Mike Huckabee might be a good Vice Presidential candidate to run with John McCain, but he took himself out of the running today with an ill-conceived joke at a National Rifle Association Conference. This might be the stupidest move I’ve ever seen a politician make. It’s covered by the AP, but this snippet is from ABCNews (where they’ve got some video goodness):

ABC News’ Kevin Chupka Reports: Former GOP hopeful and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is back in the news this week, making a splash when he took a hit at Senator Barack Obama during the annual National Rifle Association meeting.

Huckabee made an off-color joke during his speech in Louisville, Kentucky, when a loud bang was heard off-stage.

“That was Barack Obama,” Huckabee quipped, “He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he…he dove for the floor.”

Huckabee’s chances for the Veep nomination? There should be none. If one is a politician, one simply does not joke about any gunfire directed at any candidate. Heck, one doesn’t joke about the candidate’s reactions, either. Expect this one to get big airplay from the talking heads tonight, and expect the folks at FauxNews to bring out the “can’t you even take a joke” meme.

There are things in this world that we cannot joke about. If folks on the right are upset about that, then so be it. Regardless, this hurts John McCain more than anyone, as he loses a man who could have brought the religious right back into the fold.

Oil prices are nearing $128/bbl today. The price of refined gasoline at the pump in the U.S. is bordering on (and above, in some places) $4/gallon. Hyper-inflation of gasoline prices in the U.S. market might not seem that onerous to other countries around the world, particularly because we enjoy a relatively low rate of taxation on oil products - in fact, as pointed out before, the federal gas tax in the U.S. is the lowest (by far) in the industrialized world. Still, the price levels that are being experienced right now simply can’t - and won’t - last. The oil price bubble is ready to burst.

George Bush was in Riyadh today, holding hands with Saudi princes again and asking, nay begging, for an increase in production as a method to drive down the price of crude. Naturally, the Saudis just laughed at him. They claim that there is no issue with laws of supply and demand, and that they’re pumping out enough oil now to meet market demands. And of course, that’s probably true. There is no “shortage” of oil in the market, per se.

Again, the pump price that we in the U.S. are paying doesn’t faze the rest of the world, because even at $4/gallon, gas is relatively inexpensive by global standards. But there’s another way to think about this.

Fuel prices in the U.S. have essentially doubled overnight. Not literally, but for market absorption purposes, yes. The quick increase in the pump price is translating into increased costs for everything in the U.S. market, because it costs much more money to transport food to the local supermarket, it costs more to run the machines that harvest and make the food, it costs more to fly the airplanes that get us from point a to b, and…well, I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.

What I will tell you is that it’s not sustainable. While the faux inflation index says that inflation isn’t a major concern at the moment, one trip to the supermarket will tell anyone differently. When the price of a standard loaf of Wonderbread is nearly $3, and bananas are now going for nearly $1/lb, the inflation that most of us have to deal with on a daily basis is out of control.

Now, consider what average person’s annual pay increase this year will look like - it’s not going to be 20% to keep up with the cost of living (or making a living). It would be a real surprise if the average worker’s pay raise this year tops 3 or 4%. So. Food goes up 20%. Fuel (all types) increases at a much higher rate. Wages are stagnant.

Something has to give.

Following the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970’s, I can clearly recall Sheik Yamani (the Saudi oil minister at the time) saying that when the U.S. got it’s act together, and drove down consumption, prices would naturally fall. And, he was right. The price of crude did eventually drop back from the mid-20’s to the low teens, because consumers in the U.S. were forced by circumstance to reduce demand. And the Saudi’s are right this time, too - they’re pumping enough oil to meet demand. But at this moment in time, the U.S. consumer economy is still solvent enough to pay $4 to $5 per gallon. But it can’t last. It can’t.

That’s why I think we’re at the peak of the oil price bubble. There are already troubling economic signs that indicate U.S. consumers are significantly retracting their personal spending, because income simply isn’t keeping pace with cash out-flow from the average American. People are already being forced to make hard choices on just about everything that requires taking money out of the wallet, because more and more money is being required just to pay for basics that can’t be cut.

Americans are draining their savings. Many have already tapped out whatever equity they had in their homes. Credit cards are maxed out, and credit defaults of all manner are at record levels. At some point, the money (or access to money) just runs out for most people in the working class, and there’s no way to make ends meet beyond the basics.

This coming summer, we’re going to find out just how close we are to “there”. Since economic indicators lag actual consumer spending trends by months, we’re not going to know when the crash has happened until American society is already hip deep in trouble, and by that time, it’ll be too late for a lot of people. There’s only one upside to this scenario:

That’s when the oil bubble bursts. Common sense tells me that we’re very close. Prices have just gone up too quickly not to come crashing back to earth. I wouldn’t buy oil futures at this time in history anymore than I would buy Floridian swamp futures (but then, maybe that’s why I’m not an investment analyst).

When the bubble does burst, maybe then we’ll be dealing with supply issues, but that’s certainly not the case right now. And neither are taxes. Consumption and the low value of the U.S. dollar are driving the market right now, pure and simple. The fall is going to be a hard one.

When I traveled around the world, one of the most notable differences was the character and content of television news. The primary distinction seems to be a matter of depth…meaning the news in other regions isn’t just presented in short sound bites. Granted, we have programs in the U.S. that provide detailed reports on topics of interest, however, they are in short supply when compared to many other countries and they aren’t typically included as part and parcel of the traditional news cycle.

The following segment, from al Jazeera, on the growing global food crisis is an example of the kind of reporting we see less of in the United States. The report is a lengthy discussion intended to provide some understanding of the factors that are contributing to the food crisis as well as to explore the changes or solutions that might help alleviate it.

It is also notable in the format in which it is presented. When watching U.S. news…primarily on cable networks…the format usually includes participants with two diametrically opposing views offering the talking points of their political constituents and attempting to talk over each other…in segments that might last at most ten minutes…and frequently far shorter.

To understand the distinction, I would offer that the U.S. equivalent wouldn’t be found in television broadcasting - rather it is in fact National Public Radio (NPR). If you’ve listened to NPR, they frequently explore topics that are receiving sparse coverage on the television networks. One can also find more in-depth stories on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) though many of these programs follow the network format that includes a point - counterpoint approach.

Granted, my observations are more anecdotal than scientific but I suspect there is merit none the less. It appears that we Americans have become content with receiving our news in abbreviated form…delivered by partisans sharing talking points that have first been vetted by focus groups. I think it would make more sense if the American voter functioned like the focus group…taking the time to explore the ins and outs of a topic before making any conclusions while skipping the partisan spoon feeding we’ve come to accept. Don’t hold your breath on that happening any time soon.

If you’ll take the time to watch the following report, I suspect you may concur with my speculation. Regardless, you will certainly learn that the food crisis is far more complex than can be explained in thirty seconds. It might also demonstrate that our efforts to reduce every issue to a two-sided topic fully ignores that our world needs to be understood as a complicated multi-dimensional construct whereby every action has the potential for unintended consequences. Finally, it might begin to explain why much of the rest of the world has begun to suspect that Americans are increasingly tone deaf.

Understanding The Food Crisis - Part One (VIDEO)

Understanding The Food Crisis - Part Two (VIDEO)

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

There’s a whole lot of uproar in the world today about President Bush’s speech in the Israeli Knesset yesterday. Seems Bush decided to use the example of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler at Munich as an example for the world to avoid. He doesn’t think it wise to talk to “terrorists or radicals.” Many, of course, have seen this as a swipe at Barack Obama, who has proposed talking to the Iranians. Privately, Bush Administration officials said it was indeed a reference to Obama, at least according to some sources such as Time Magazine’s Andrew Romano. But I’m willing to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt. Here’s Dana Perino’s words denying Bush was talking about Obama when he made his statements to the Knesset (from the White House web site):

Q There’s some question about his comment here about “some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong” — you know the passage. And he talks about the “false comfort of appeasement.” This is being seen in some quarters as a slam on Senator Obama. Is this in any way directed at Senator Obama?

MS. PERINO: It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you — that is not always true and it is not true in this case.

Let’s assume that Dana Perino has insight into what Bush means and that he did not actually aim his remarks at Barack Obama. Then who were the remarks aimed at?

OK, maybe Bush is doing a historical thing and charging Reagan, whose people negotiated with the Iranians in the arms for hostages deal. Maybe that’s who he thinks is an appeaser. (John McCain has something to say about that, though he is wrong historically.) But I don’t think Bush would be aiming at the big Republican icon that is Reagan. That would be suicide, and he’s still got a feww months left of decidering, after all.

I’m thinking Bush’s cowboy image just thought it would be a good thing to challenge the Israelis right there on the floor of the Knesset. After all, Bush thinks the Syrians are sponsors of terrorism, just as he thinks the Iranians are. Who is currently negotiating with the Syrians? Israel. Yeah, direct talks between Israel and Syria are close to happening. That would make Israel the target of Bush’s remarks, the entity he thinks are “appeasers.” After all, the Bush Administration said the remarks weren’t aimed at Obama. They must be aimed at those actually negotiating with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.

Bush chose his venue well. The Knesset. Wow, that takes some big stones the size of Texas to slam the Israelis on their own turf. The Israelis would call that “chutzpah.” I call it stupid. But what do I know?

Edit, 9:16 am: On second thought, there is one more person out there who has discussed talking to terrorists and radicals. John McCain, in 2006. Maybe Bush thinks John McCain is an appeaser?

I’m not a huge fan of Chris Matthews. In fact, I think Chris Matthews (in general) is a pox on the political landscape in America.

Never the less, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Watch this segment from yesterday evening’s “Hardball”. I’m not even going to set it up for you. It’s best viewed with absolutely no brain clutter. Fair warning: empty your mouth of any solids or liquids prior to viewing.

Please, enjoy responsibly.

I realize I should be excited about the California Supreme Court’s decision to remove the ban on same-sex marriage…but the pragmatist in me simply won’t allow it. I’ll explain my thinking after the following excerpt on today’s ruling.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two measures that would have authorized same-sex marriage, today said he would abide by the court’s ruling.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” he said in a statement. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

But as early as November, voters could be asked to render their opinion on an amendment that would again attempt to ban same-sex marriage.

A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the amendment, which would say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the initiative’s sponsors, said the Supreme Court decision is a boost for the measure because opponents have been saying there is no real threat that same sex marriages will happen.

“This decision draws a line in the sand and makes it clear that this is the last chance for voters to have a say,” Pugno said. “This is proof positive for voters that the courts are out of control and the voters have to step up.”

First, the timing of this ruling isn’t advantageous. As we approach a critical election in which the Democrats are poised to take the presidency as well as additional seats in the house and the senate, giving the rabid right wing an issue to rally around is apt to boost the GOP’s fundraising, motivate evangelicals to get out and vote, allow John McCain to exploit the differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party with regards to same-sex issues (including forcing the Democratic nominee to clarify his or her position on the ruling and same-sex marriage), and give supporters of an amendment to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the California constitution ample ammunition to fund and promote their ballot measure (every right wing organization is going to pour money into this ballot initiative).

Secondly, I believe that the mood of voters had changed since the 2004 election. That change included less of an emphasis on values driven politics and more of a focus on issues that endear voters to the Democratic Party. Today’s ruling may return us to the days of God, guns, and gays…with a particular emphasis on gays. Should that happen, it would allow the detractors of the Democratic party to reemphasize the fact that they are generally in favor of extending more rights to gays, accepting of court rulings that expand rights even if the voters wouldn’t vote to approve them, and in favor of appointing more judges with similar views.

Let’s look at the chronology to better understand the shift that took place since 2004 and the likelihood that this ruling could facilitate a step backwards in terms of renewed voter resistance. Following on the heels of Massachusetts allowing gay marriage as a result of a 2003 court ruling, in February of 2004, San Francisco and other municipalities began issuing marriage licenses to gays. While all of these actions felt empowering and led to numerous celebratory moments, it was short lived (except in Massachusetts) and likely assisted in the passage of amendments to ban same-sex marriage in eleven states.

Following the 2004 election, Iraq, the economy, and other issues pushed the values agenda to the back burner as voters focused on other concerns. The outcome of the 2006 election supports that contention. As we’ve approached the 2008 election, the general perception has been that God, guns, and gays had fallen into disfavor with voters (or at least been overtaken by other priorities) and would not play a significant part in this election cycle.

If one believes that history repeats itself…and that the U.S. has a history of vacillating between left and right (in a manner reminiscent of a pendulum) when it comes to issue of morality…this ruling could create the momentum needed to effect a shift to the right…or at the very least a halt to the current swing leftward. While these back and forth swings seem inevitable, the timing of this ruling may be the accelerant that sets in motion the unfavorable shifts noted above…sooner than they would have otherwise occurred. That would be a classic example of an unintended consequence…but an unwelcome and unfortunate one no less.

Look, I also believe that the affording of rights can’t always be scheduled for maximum advantage…nor should they be delayed accordingly. History will undoubtedly view this ruling as one of the important steps in the chronology of granting gays equal status. Nonetheless, the journey between now and then may well include events that (similar to this ruling), at the time they occur, seem to be a step forward but that ultimately precipitate a temporary step backwards. As such, the soldiers need to be prepared for the times when retreat and retrenchment are the order of the day.

Today is a time for celebrating…but tomorrow may be another story. It is imperative that we remain vigilantly mindful of the impact our actions will have on the ever shifting political terrain. This means that it is essential for us to be aware of the positions each of the combatants holds on the battlefield. In the end, regardless of the victories and defeats, the march towards equality must never cease. Today we’ve won a battle…tomorrow the war proceeds.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

NewsMax, the “news source” that has brought us many outright lies over the years, including a report that Barack Obama attended Rev. Wright’s diatribe back in July of 2007, is nothing if not consistently conservative, even to the point of lying about it. They once said Rick Santorum and U2 were putting on a fundraiser together, only to have U2 deny any knowledge, and the Santorum campaign to admit their fundraiser was not in concert with U2. Man, they make a whole bunch of stuff up. But this time they may have hit it on the money. We can hope so. Here’s a little bit of their story:

GOP Loses Congressional Election, Faces Bloodbath in Nov.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:57 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

On Tuesday night, Republicans lost a Republican congressional district in a special election in Mississippi.

Party insiders fear the loss may be just another sign of a coming bloodbath for congressional Republicans this November.

We can only hope these folks have got it right finally. I’m thinking such alarmism might serve to energize the Republican base, but it could also be the kind of bad news that will just get them to stay at home once election day comes around. Bad news for your party is the kind of thing that will do that.

Of course, NewsMax provides no analysis on this one, perhaps because they’d have to lay blame for the coming Republican collapse on. . . Republican policies, corruption, incompetence, etc.

Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse have an article of election analysis in the New York Times today. They detail, quite well, the implications of that Childers win in the overwhelmingly Republican District in MS on Tuesday. As you all know, that’s the third special election loss by the Republican Party in a row, and all in Republican leaning districts. I like these reactions to that loss from the Nagourney/Hulse article:

“This was a real wake-up call for us,” Robert M. Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview. “We can’t let the Democrats take our issues. We can’t let them pretend to be conservatives and co-opt the middle and win these elections. We have to get the attention of our incumbents and candidates and make sure they understand this.”

Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and former leader of his party’s Congressional campaign committee, issued a dire warning that the Republican Party had been severely damaged, in no small part because of its identification with President Bush. Mr. Davis said that, unless Republican candidates changed course, they could lose 20 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.

“They are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate,” Mr. Davis said in a memorandum. “The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006.”

. . .

“The Republican brand is down, and it is going to be hard to get it back,” said Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California.

Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said it appeared that lawmakers might have to fend for themselves. “You are going to have to run on who you are and establish some independence, and that is going to be tougher for some than others,” Mr. King said.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, did not go as far as his predecessor, Mr. Davis, in advising members to step away from Mr. Bush. But Mr. Cole, facing growing restiveness among Republicans about the party leadership, acknowledged the tumult in his party’s ranks and suggested that his committee would look for a change in strategy.

“When you lose three of these in a row you have to get beyond campaign tactics and take a hard look and ask if there is something wrong with your product,” he said.

Robert Duncan thinks the Democrats stole GOP issues. As far as I’m concerned, the GOP abandoned its issues on the side of the road these last seven years, and those issues have been found and adopted, some of them, by Democrats. While Tom Davis notes that the GOP canaries are dying, indicating a toxic electoral atmosphere in November for the GOP, it isn’t surprising he doesn’t assess blame. It sure seems like “Not Me” is the one who broke the Republican brand. Hey, kids can get away with blaming an imaginary ghost, but aren’t Republicans supposed to be adults? I particularly like Tom Coles’s comment, saying they’ve got to take a hard look at what is broken in the Republican Party.

I’m here to say that what is broken is that not one of these guys is willing to assess blame. To them it’s always someone else’s fault. But unless they find out who is at fault for sullying the Republican brand, these guys are going to founder (which doesn’t upset me all that much). It might be useful to look to the “Contract with America” from fourteen years ago, and compare what it promised as Republican ideals to what the Republicans have given us over the last seven years. The plain fact is they’ve broken every little clause in that “Contract,” sometimes in spectacular fashion. It’s real live Republicans, from Bush to Cheney to McCain to the GOP Senate to the GOP House that broke every tenet of that contract, too. Here’s a discussion of a few of the clauses of that contract (there’s a nice discussion of the “Contract with America” at wikipedia, and also at house.gov).

The Contract with America called for fiscal responsibility, and it seems clear from all of Newt Gingrich’s statements since that he meant moderate spending and balanced budgets. They called the measure the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and it was number one among the promises of the Contract with America proposed in 1994. We now know that when the Republicans get their hands on a couple branches of government at the same time they spend money like a drunken Yale cheerleader, and they won’t stop spending until they get kicked out of office. We’ll hear whiney excuses for their runaway spending, which has led to the biggest deficits in US history. They’ll claim they had to spend because of 9/11. Whine, whine, whine. The examples of endless earmarks that went to Republican districts are all there, like a Bridge to Nowhere, to tell us who is responsible for this runaway spending in the Bush years. GOP President + GOP legislators = deficit spending on steroids. And no personal responsibility, of course.

Yeah, the Contract with America contained The Personal Responsibility Act, which was really aimed at unwed mothers. Their point was to withdraw what they saw as incentives for girls to get pregnant out of wedlock, the old AFDC system. They were going to force personal responsibility on those girls, whether they liked it or not. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has lost any sense of personal Responsibility itself. Look at those quotes up there. Those party leaders sure seem scared, and some even recognize that their brand is broken, but not one single one of those guys is ready or willing to find out who broke the lamp. Dammit a CHILD answers with a “Not Me,” and we expect that. For these grown men to ignore that it wasn’t an accident that broke the Republican Brand, but that it took the concerted efforts of George Bush and the RNC and a whole crop of GOP Senators and Congressmen to shatter every single principle the Republicans tried to present as their brand.

I’d say it is a moral responsibility to take personal responsibility, and the Republicans ran roughshod with immoral actions as if they were at a frat party these last seven years. (Abramoff, Foley, Craig, Stevens, Doolittle. . . need I go on?) But it isn’t only scandals and lawbreaking by Republicans, then the whiney excuses they use when caught, that shows the GOP abandonment of any notion of personal responsibility for themselves. This issue was the underpinning morally of the entirety of the GOP’s Contract on with America. Sure, the National Security and Restoration Act they promised was meant to assure the “restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world,” and Bush’s bumbling in Iraq has assured that Republicans will never be known for their foreign policy stature ever again. To completely destroy our nation’s reputation is a moral failing on Mr. Bush’s part, and not just a massive failure of policy after policy cooked up by the neocons who advised Bush. These guys quoted after Tuesday’s election will never lay that responsibility at Bush’s door, any more than they will blame themselves for following like GOP sheep in allowing bush to sully our country’s good name.

Oh, the Republicans surely need to take credit for destroying themselves. I’m here to say that their only way out of this electoral cesspool they crashed their party into is to admit long and loud that the Republican Party failed in the last seven years. Then they’d have to ask forgiveness and hope upon hope that they can keep some of their Senators and Congresscritters in their jobs. After that, it’s down the straight and narrow fiscal road for them, or else they will fail to be a national party anyone other than the Bush 28% will ever respect.

Hey, and they need to do a few other things, but this entry is too long already. Were I the adviser to the Republican Party I’d disassociate wherever possible with those who have been called the “most influential” Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity and the like. America has come to see these people and the loudest voices of the religious right to represent the Republican Brand, and that means they are that brand now, a bunch of divisive souls whose sole purpose is to divide America as a way to the questionable reward of being elected. The strategy of the right-wing radio, TV and talk show might of the GOP, the name calling of the Limbaughs and Coulters, is broken. Every time one of those folks speaks they make throw mud at the GOP brand.

Of course, I have no fear of any on the GOP listening to this advice. They’ll continue to limp along, lie to themselves, avoid taking responsibility for the mess they’ve led us into. I have no fears there will be a healthy Republican Party any time soon.

Most of us are familiar with the expression, “Be careful what you wish for”, though I suspect it rarely keeps us from spending our time hoping to achieve or attain the things we seek. The fact that the California Supreme Court is set to rule tomorrow on whether the state can deny gays the right to marry will likely be a defining moment in our understanding of the concept of the double edged sword.

On the one hand, those who have waited years to have their relationships recognized may see a favorable ruling as the culmination of a dream come true. On the other hand, a favorable ruling will undoubtedly be seen as a nightmare to those who have expended untold energy seeking to prohibit any recognition of same-sex relationships. Hence, how the two sides absorb the outcome will likely have more meaning than the actual ruling.

The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The justices today posted a notation on the court’s Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.

The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.

A ruling in favor of gay marriage could stoke a political firestorm in the fall if a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage in California makes it onto the ballot. A decision on whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot is expected in June.

As such, tomorrow will bring both the culmination of hopeful expectations and the delivery of disappointment. Needless to say, that means the ruling is apt to inspire one side while inciting the other. How those perceptions are played out in terms of focus found or fear infused will likely have more to do with deciding the future of gay marriage.

So where will that leave us? Frankly, it leaves us where we’ve always been…needing to find the means to communicate with those we don’t understand in order to remove the misconceptions that serve to maintain what has to be viewed as an untenable status quo.

In the end, without real change, today, tomorrow, and the day after are one and the same so long as the issue of gay marriage remains a zero sum equation in the minds of the combatants. Tomorrow will have a winner…but we’d all be wise to realize that it may not be a victory.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Several folks on the McCain team have worked, for money, to propel the agenda of the Myanmar dictators. I’m understanding the light of day is causing these rats to run and resign from the campaign. From the Seminal.

Can we have the mainstream media talk about this just a little bit?