BIG OIL AND THE REPUBLICANS THAT LOVE THEM

Check out the Yahoo! article today about the Republicans in the Senate blocking legislation to impose a windfall profit tax on the oil industry. This windfall tax imposes a tax when the industry acquires suspiciously high profits for the market price of its product.

The oil industry reported a record setting $40 billion in profits this last year despite the skyrocketting prices at the gas pump and the insistence that it was coming from the price and availability of crude. The prices per barrel aren't going up in comparison to some shrinking demand, however, they're going up in comparison to the weakening US dollar.

Republicans argue that it would cause the lessening of domestic production and an increase in imports. We already import more than 2/3rds of our oil, what's the difference? They also blocked the passage of further tax breaks on alternative energy industries. Why? Because someone called them up and told them to hold on a little longer until they buy their next house in Spain before they impose an extra tax.

My proposal is this: We sued the tobacco industry for the long-term effects of their cigarettes, it's time to sue the major oil companies so that we can all benefit from a lowered fuel price. We are slowly being crippled by some of the most flagrant corporate manipulation of the market and control of the government, so much so that now that we are finally aware of how bad it's getting, it is already too late for millions to lose their jobs and homes, for our food costs to get too high to be able to eat, and for our "great nation" to be crushed under the stupidity of leaders owned by a corrupt industry.

The article is at:
http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits

CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTING FOR KILLING OUR ECONOMY

DUE TO: US Corporations taking advantage of the practice of outsourcing and exploiting cheap labor forces in destitute economies, they have eroded the US job markets, cutting into consumers' ability to spend and proportionally cutting away at the whole of our economy. The mass use of this exploitation was to strengthen their own corporate image among shareholders in a shaky economy, and so the problem isn't circumstantial but instead systematic and has been going on for a long time. Make no mistake: corporations see consumers as a resource for themselves to make money both by their own products and by the confidence of investors. They have no problem with abusing the consumer market as long as they benefit.

On the flipside, they are exploiting the labor of poor countries yet sending away US dollars into foreign markets. While this money is perhaps less than they would pay for equivilant numbers of workers or in providing work environments up to US legal standards and conditions dictated by workers' rights, they would at least help to reduce the amount of money bleeding away.

If corporations refuse to use their own spending ability to increase the amount of money in the US consumer market and thereby create an ACTUAL stability in their own profits, than they should be fined or taxed in proportion to their impact on the job market, taxability and spending of US consumers. The money they make off us is disproportionate to the amount of money they are sending over seas, while at the same time cutting back on jobs we need and money we've earned.

Corporations should be held accountable for their detrimental effects on the US economy. While they might have the short term solution of cutting costs and increasing productivity, they've essentially eroded the basis of their own prophits and lowered the confidence of consumers across the board. If they won't reinvest some of their profits and encourage growth at home, they should be taxed in proportion to the amount of services the government is forced to take to make up for their failings.

CORPORATIONS SHOULD ANSWER FOR AILING ECONOMY

Until the last few years we've been able to take comfort in a strong economy despite the growing number of jobs being imported to cheaper labor forces in other countries. This has been the case for years in the garment industry but now was stretching into corporate America. In the past few years as corporations tried to stem bleeding budgets and recover losses, they began a mass exodus of staple middle-class jobs like call centers, customer service, manufacturing.

Not only have these corporations moved these jobs to other nations, but they've exploited the low wages, standards of living, and lack of workers rights to produce cheaper products, streamline services, and ultimately reduce the economic capacity of middle-America. Fewer jobs equals fewer people who can buy things. This equals lower sales, less homeowners, lower credit, higher rates of people defaulting on loans, etc...

The variable rate mortages were another way of taking advantage of a seemingly strong economy held together by these stable corporate earnings and low interest rates, but ultimately as gas prices started to rise and put a crunch on every other industry, along with the further erosion of the US job market, people couldn't live on the type of credit they'd come to rely on.

Corporations that export labor are one of the most important factors to our ailing economy. Bring those jobs home, and even if they aren't proportionally creating as many jobs here due to minimum wages, at least they'll bring some mobility to the work force. If they don't bring jobs home, and insist on spreading those corporate dollars earned from US consumers, they should be taxed in proportion to the amount of money that they are bleeding away from our own economy.

BUSH CAMPAIGNING FOR MCCAIN

The half-whit is hitting the fundraising trail for the AZ senator, which is funny as they were rivals a decade ago. I wonder what he can say aside from keeping the White House in Republican hands, anything else would point out that we probably would have been better with a McCain presidency than a Bush presidency. As a matter of policy the AZ senator will uphold the same military policy as the idiot, so what will make a McCain presidency any different from a third Bush term, something that Bush is basing his campaign strategies on.

I hope that Bush continues to campaign for McCain, and does so visibly so as to turn off conservative voters. This is critical to cause the country to realize its failure to envision and protect its own prosperity and future development. We cannot continue to operate under the assumption that there is the possibility of infinite expansion, as past imperialism led us to believe. That will be a danger as we move into the future and nations such as China, which have enormous growth potential, have already invaded and secured large portions of our own consumer markets.

All of these things are up for change in this election, but its our responsibility to realize exactly how much corporate interests and money are going to be filtered into the Republican campaign, and how much influence, or ownership, it'll have over our future president. McCain is the candidate of corporations, including those owned partly or wholly by foreign powers. If we don't want China and other countries who already work against our best interests owning our president, it's important for people to realize that voting for McCain is voting for George Bush's shadow.

ANN COULTER IS A FILTHY HYPOCRITE AND WHORE FOR THE RADICAL RIGHT

First and foremost I want to present my opinion in a way that is succinct, clear, and intellectually valid. Ann Coulter is a filthy hypocrite because she takes advantage of every opportunity she has had as a wealthy well-educated woman in the US and turns it into a contradictory, self-righteous shock pundit who panders to the conservative extremists she identifies with. Her opinions are based on broad and outdated generalities, and she puts to use all of the progress made by women to gain access to education, equal representation and civil rights while bearing none of the responsibilities for helping to uphold those rights and freedoms. She's an educated woman who does nothing to advance the discourse on women's rights here in the US or around the world and instead occupies the office of the angry golden daughter of the radical conservatives.

Also: while she demands attention for her ideas and expects to be taken seriously as a political pundit, when she appears on television she is often dressed in tight, revealing outfits with makeup and hair that looks like she just got home from the party, at 7am. Basically she dresses like a whore when she goes on television in an attempt, I can only assume, to sex up the image of her radical politics, and or give it an image of hip and sophisticated modernism. Her image is one of when she isn't on her back for the white men of the Republican Party, she's backing them up in the bar fight.

HEIRS TO A FREE SOCIETY...SHUT UP GEORGE BUSH

In his speech today at Arlington National Cemetery, George W Bush said that the veterans buried there had created a legacy which allowed for the continuance of a "free civilization."

But who is this society free for? And what society is that?

After almost 8 years of war against a diverse group of culturally supported enemies, we have managed to alienate ourselves from everyone in the world except those countries economically or militarily dependent on us and nations which have abhorrent records of human rights violations. These are the nations we choose to ally ourselves with more out of corporate interests than any interest in a strong long-term economy here in the US. It is also a war instigated and led by an infantile child of a president in part to make up for his father's failings and in part to satisfy his friends in executive offices. That is after the people of the US made clear statements of their stance against the war, a stance ignored by a wealthy president too concerned with his own power than fulfilling his sworn duties to the people of the country he leads.

So in the end, are those people who died fighting for a society where a president ignores the best interest of the nation in order to solidify his power and pander to his corporate friends, and in which freedom is defined more by our choices in consumer spending than our support of quality public education, a healthy environment, equal rights, an effective widely available health care system, etc etc? How free are we when our civilization is defined by major periods of war rather than intellectual advancements or by innovations in raising the quality of living for the majority of our own citizens, much less the globe? Or where we are free to express our opinions and yet a vastly diverse gathering of a million citizens is ignored or invalidated as radical when they march on Washington to stand against an unjust war?

Today's Memorial Day, and George W Bush has personally added more than 4,000 men and women to the National Cemetary, in addition to tens of thousands of unacknowledged others in graves across Iraq and Afghanistan.

ILLEGAL IMMAGRENTS/ILLEGAL WORKERS

If we have companies that are hiring 'illegal' workers who are undocumented workers with significant numbers of illegals employed, then why are we not making legislation that would allow those businesses to host and sponsor those workers to get work permit and starting their citizenship process rather than keeping them as illegal workers. Wouldn't that be an acceptable way of documenting and incorporating those workers into our workforce?

HOW IMPORTANT IS GAY MARRIAGE?

The title of this post isn't because I'm flippant about the subject, I think that it is somewhat important. I guess that I've moved away from gay marriage and to topics that are more immediate for me, like poverty, health care, and environmentally responsible consumerism.

California ruled it's unconstitutional to deny marriage to gays and lesbians, especially since the state already recognizes civil unions and domestic-partnerships, and that makes sense when compared to constitutionality. If you recognize something as valued, stable and lawful, how can you keep it from just being the same thing and allow gays to marry.

For some it seems a consuming issue, I guess, but when I look at the faces of the people trying to get married I don't see activists, I see a lot of middle to upper-middle class mostly white people, not hippies or people who truly push social boundaries. I think what I really come away from the ruling with is that the dialog has at least been moved away from the crazy conservative place it has been in since Bush took office and before.

MCCAIN AS BIG OF AN IDIOT AS OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT

John McCain thinks that 12 years after twelve years of war we will for sure have our victory in Iraq. It will just take courage, resolve, us electing him president and a full term, but by 2013 he knows it'll happen.

I think he's making the perfect choice to tailor his rhetoric and policies after George Bush's, especially since Bush has become a mockery of a modern leader, lost almost all credibility, at least in terms of Iraq and foreign policy, among American voters, and is generally seen as only slightly above a 9th grade reading level.

Keep it up Johnny, it's exactly how we like you!

PRIVATIZING HEALTHCARE IS BULLSHIT

One of the things I hate most about the Bush administration, and about Republican political objectives in general, is this notion that our current health care problems would be fixed by further privatizing health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Why do they think the system is fucked up already? The reason why there ARE people on those social programs is because the private insurance providers are under no restriction as to whom they will or will not cover. Thus you have older adults who have Medicare to pay for most of their medical bills because most insurance companies won't cover them. You have people with severe managed health issues needing public health care options because they can't receive affordable options through private companies, and may or may not be eligible for insurance through their work.

Ultimately the problem isn't too much tax money to help people who need it and a broken public health system, it's the trillions of dollars in private health industries that refuse to work for anyone but those who are already able to pay and healthy.

GAS PRICES!!!!! AAAAAAHHH!!!!

Oh JESUS! The gas prices are so high and they aren't going to be going down. By summer they will be over $4/gallon and while this isn't nearly as bad as it is in the Europe, they don't have nearly as far or much to drive as we do in the US. What is the biggest problem? If you work anything of a 'typical' work day, 9am-5pm, you are going to end up sitting in traffic and using some of those precious gallons of gas just sitting on the highway.

I love it how there was a big mess in the news about high gas prices and how oil execs were posting record profits and paychecks. That they were then brought before Congress for a day or two of hearings and then no one was indicted is a crime. how is the working class supposed to survive when the prices of food are escalating, the prices of gas is continually rising day by day, and the rate of new jobs created and people hired continues to proportionally go down. You cannot have an economy that bounces back or has any hope of surviving when more and more people are being put into poverty and unemployment while every aspect of living costs skyrocket.

Meanwhile our half-whit-in-chief talks about taking measures to curb rising gas prices by getting Ethanol to wider markets. Meanwhile Ethanol is incredibly cost-ineffective and is causing the change of cash crops in countries around the world to switch from rice to corn for ethanol while most of the world is starving for and paying record prices for the rice they depend on as part of their diet.

It's a good thing all those truck-drivers with their 'support the troupes' and American flag stickers on their trucks voted for George Bush. I hope they suffer the most.

Homeless and the Public Anxiety

We as a culture like to keep poverty and suffering at arms length, making poor and people begging on a corner invisible and seeing them as unfortunate but ultimately unpleasant and dangerous. Homeless people then are forced to remain away from the public eye, spending their time in alleys and under bridges, alternating between being harassed by the police for loitering and being ignored by the general public. What are we afraid of though? Why do we feel the way we do? is it because we feel guilty for the things that we do have when we are reminded of those who are less fortunate? By making them invisible are we justifying our better clothes, expensive shoes, our desire for expensive cars? Or are we feeling anxiety that we are not doing enough to help?

Either way, I've seen the same group of homeless people hanging out in and around a park near where I work, just off of a fairly poor area which I am sure has either or both of a soup kitchen and shelters. One day I saw them passing around a single bottle of cheap vodka as they sat outside on the grass, another time I saw them under a bridge, sitting in a cluster, probably for safety. Why people are homeless is a mystery to me, but I can see that there isn't a single reason and most of the time it isn't by choice or by their own fault. I just don't understand how we are such an advanced society technologically and economically, yet we can't seem to find ways of housing people despite the fact that more and more homes are standing empty.

Single-Payer Nat'l Healthcare

Even many doctors are advocating that the only system that will be comprehensive in addressing the horrible situation that we have with uninsured or poorly insured American's is a single-payer national healthcare program. This would be similar to Medicare except it would cover everybody. I think it is the only way to go in providing all people in the US with good health care and the ability to cut through the insurance nightmare currently faced by this country.

George W Bush and all those others who advocated privatizing Medicare and Social Security are lying when they don't acknowledge that they are giving more kickbacks to the insurance companies by the fees and coverage costs they'd charge insurers that otherwise would be covered by Medicare. That is how banks make all their money, on fees, and that is how insurance companies make all their money as well.

Iraq and the Presidential Contenders

The presidential contenders seem to be laboring under the false pretense that ANY strategy that doesn't involve the immediate withdrawal of troupes from Iraq and some accounting for the troupes remaining in Afghanistan will be acceptable to the majority of Americans. For that matter they all want to redirect their statements to incorporate the possibility that we can't pull out of the Arab Peninsula or that we will have to retain some troupe presence.

If Iraq cannot stand on it's own with the amount of governmental infrastructure in place, that is their fault. We should not have to support a nation that is supposed to be receiving billions in aid, and ps, where is the oil money that is supposed to be flowing from that country? If the people are suffering from lack of electricity and lack of flowing water, where is the money going to? I think that it is about time that there is financial accountability for ever dollar being sent, and to bring the troupes home in honor and dignity.

Poly - Condoms vs. Latex....

For all those who have an allergy so that their urethrae burn, the polyurethane condoms are an option you should look into. The texture feels similar to that of a sandwich bag, though the thinner kind not the hardy zip-lock kind. Aside from the texture, they feel more substantial, less likely to break, and in their way even more closely related to the real skin than latex. Now, that doesn't necessarily make them any stronger or substantial, there is just that feeling. The best of all, however, is that they are not dissolved by oil-based lubes, do not get weird when used in conjunction with silicone based lubes, and are safe.

Worldchanging and Industry

I have been thinking a lot about environmentalism and the green movement. In particular I've been thinking about the consumer market and 'green' products. I can't say that I am a terribly responsible consumer. I, like most Americans, like to shop, I like new things and I like the feeling of affluence that my purchasing power gives me. I think this new movement and awareness is excellent and now that the ball is rolling in the mainstream media and industries, it is important to keep it moving forward so that instead of companies maintaining the current standards of environmental responsibility they've set, they keep moving to more sustainable solutions.

Ideally, an environmentally responsible person wouldn't take more than they gave back. Human beings, however, don't seem capable to just live in equilibrium with the environment and it is unfair to impose the notion that because someone wants something that they are greedy or evil. Some environmentalists have been quietly saying that this green movement isn't an actual solution, but I think they are underestimating the power of mainstream media.

Now that even George W. Bush acknowledges the threats of global warming and destruction of the environment, it is no longer about visibility, but to sustain the passion many people have begun to feel for issues of environmental safety and health as they have about people suffering from Cancer or from AIDS. We can do this by taking full advantage of the desire to find the newest item, the newest craze, the newest idea or lifestyle or fashion, in other words to use the hunger of consumerism against itself. Once people come to accept the newest idea of sustainability as purchasing less or the absolute most renewable and reusable and multi-purpose, it will then make it easier to point out the avarice of those who consume in huge quantities as examples of the evils of mass consumption. It could be the new 'size 0' trend, like that of Hollywood actresses starving to be as thin as possible.

Making that a reality is just as much about continuing to infuse the media with passion and messages and progressive ideas as it is about picket lines and marches. If it can be glamorized, sexed up, or made otherwise desirable, we can make environmental responsibility a fact of life for most Americans. The evils of media manipulation put to good use.

Interesting Video

This is an interesting movie because it offers well documented evidence towards the conspiracies it's talking about. I think the real question it raises isn't so much whether these power hierarchies exist as much as do we want to know about them? Are our lives better served by learning about the systems of control we exist under or that direct our cultures?

I think there is an important element involving an intersection of the level of economic mobility, education opportunities, level of ignorance and prejudice, and the level of violence and fear in our culture which exist due to these systems of control. What is important to remember is that economic mobility only comes from knowledge and skills, learning and education are the only way to increase competitiveness in any job market, and the only way to streamline and increase capacity for individual consumer spending. It is thus ironic that it is also the way of further identifying and learning to respond/act against the interests of the power groups discussed in this video.

Since it is essentially a closed system, however, there is also a reverse power in that the consumers as a group have the power to identify, expose and act against the power groups such as the major financial institutions. We can boycott their activities and subsidiaries, we can protest and form picket lines outside their headquarters, we can march on Congress and now, especially, with the freedom of information and anonymity offered by the internet, we are able to bombard the public with information to educated them as to the illegality and criminality of these groups.

I think that these systems are most effective because the vast majority of the public are content and comfortable to live within the current structure, happy to let these power systems continue on as is, or too stupid to realize how much better their lives could be if they would get off the couch, leave the bar, or just stop eating fast food and wake up to the potential to live so much better. Some of us are intelligent enough to realize that better lives are out there or who don't fit into the structures imposed on us by major financial groups and corporations who make decisions about what products and trends get produced, how they're advertised and control the media which sets much of the discourse revolving around these ideas and products and informs us how to think.

There are ways of working within the current systems by taking advantage of and fighting for the rights that we are supposed to be allowed, and to fight against things that restrict our rights. We are also able, as I said, to exercise our free speech and as long as we do not allow them to hold any power over us by keeping secrets and withholding information, but instead responding with truths, there is no reason we can't offer some change or bring about some betterment of those around us.

I do think that there are positive elements to these systems, however, as some corporations are heavily involved in philanthropy and in alleviating the suffering of others. Some, however, through their lack of social consciousness/responsibility, embody the paralytic entity that this movie represents, such as Wal-mart and the Walton family.

By and large, however, unless one is willing to take some personal action to recognize and use this information to better their life or that of those around them, it is easier and more comfortable to let this movie pass as propaganda, which it is, and to believe that our government has our best interests at heart.

First 08 Blog

I'm exhausted from work, have had a little to drink at dinner, and am generally in a lower point in my life right now, so this won't be an entry about politics or current affairs.

Right now I'm coasting a little, I don't really have a job, just temping, and not doing anything that I'm at all interested in as a career path, and I'm doing it because I need money. However, I'm not poor and in a city I really want to live in, I'm living at home with my parents, something I'd really rather not be doing, and while I have enough space to myself, it's not 'my' space, and this isn't a city that I feel is 'my' city either.

I don't really know what to do to feel like I have more control over my personhood right now. I don't necessarily think it's because I'm letting other people define me, but maybe I'm letting them define my choices or options. Maybe I need to realize that I'm too crazy to really fit into anyone person's idea of what I should be to be successful. Is there a career field for someone with a wide field of experiences, a good writer and who has ideas? Is there an 'idea guy' job out there where all I have to do is read through materials or hear proposals and then just give feedback or come up with tactics or perspectives that others haven't said before?

If there is, someone email it to me.

Steroids, Major League Baseball and the Cult of Celebrity

Mitchell report article

I don't usually pay much attention to sports articles, but this is about the Mitchell report, which is the result of the almost two-year investigation of performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. In the article it states that 3 to 6 percent of adolescents have or are using performance enhancing drugs, which I guess is a nice way of saying steroids. This does, as the article states, translate to hundreds of thousands of adolescents. There are so many different ways this impacts the lives of teens and I guess there are a number of different reasons for taking steroids, but one of the major contributors to this has to be the cult of celebrity surrounding these wealthy and highly celebrated athletes, some of whom flaunt their wealth like they were movie or rap stars. That is a report only dealing with professional baseball, also. There has yet to be something of that magnitude about other pro-sports, especially football, which has become infamous for the aggressive off-field lives of some of its star players.

There is such a drive to be successful in sports, especially for inner city youth, and particularly among young black men, for whom sports seems to be the only answer for escaping inner city violence or lower economic status. That coupled with the promises of college scouts and coaches, some of whom must be encouraging and or supplying the drugs, only makes for ruined lives if those young people are injured or fail to reach the goals set for them by their coaches and family.

Despite all these issues and the highly visible criminal cases of pro athletes just is further reason why these people shouldn't be made into gods like they are, and why most of them shouldn't be considered role models for young people, otherwise they are modeling the wrong behaviors.

Soft Power and the Exportation of War

Yahoo article on "soft power" speech by Gates

If there is any doubt about the Bush administration's efforts in diplomacy and to reach out for international alliances and support, this is the evidence. What is most interesting in this article is the concept of 'soft power' which really amounts to funding and concentrating on using civilian agencies to affect change in the international arena. This would include diplomacy through the State Department as well as whatever information is being exported to other nations, both in the government propaganda, and as I would also include, in the commercial market. More people in other nations are going to come in regular contact with American messages as consumers in the marketplace then they will just from news sources or agencies of their own government. While this is a slippery slope of truth and lies, the government has already been playing this game in our own country for decades with withholding key information about projects or investigations it deems fit for the public to know.

The statistics of the budget differences and job cuts between the Defense Department and the State Department, as well as those other agencies mentioned, are the most poignant reminder of what real diplomacy means. If the total number of diplomatic representatives equal the number of the crew of a single aircraft carrier, there is something seriously wrong our government's or president's priorities in terms of international relations. This is further highlighted by the US actions in the climate conference in Bali which was set to work on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. As this article states, the US was the only major economic power to reject the Protocol, with it's calls for reduction in fuel emissions, and it continues to be very vocal in its defensiveness over its responsibility for greenhouse gases and its level of fuel emissions.

Climate conference article

An important part of that article is the Bush administration's response to the target numbers for emissions reduction, saying that it would harm the US economy and that the conference they are sponsoring is aimed at finding an "environmentally effective and economically sustainable" solution to the emissions reduction. Here's the problem with that: they see the economic problems and environmental problems as fundamentally separate with a cause effect relationship rather than an interrelated and inseparable issue with a symbiotic relationship. The environmental impact of economic development and vice versa is too fluid to separate them in an either/or argument. What's probably the most important question is at what levels of environmental change are you willing to live in order for you to have an acceptably sustainable economy? If the climate changes continue, as they have already begun to have dramatic effects on the environment, than their effect on the US economy will begin to have a direct impact on consumers and no matter what the Bush administration thinks will happen, that has a direct impact on the political landscape of this country since consumers top priority is their own financial security.

So what level of environmental change is acceptable? Will we be OK with the Bush administration's views of 'environmentally effective and economically sustainable' policies if it causes enough of a change in seasonal temperatures that will drastically effect crop growth and the use of ground water to prevent crop loss? What about shifting major weather patterns so that areas of the country which are used to plentiful rainfall and warm but temperate seasons suffer harsher summer temperatures, droughts and harsher winter weather? What about an increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms from the interactions of shifting weather patterns and the sustained weather patterns over the Atlantic Ocean? What about the impact that weather patterns and rising sea levels will have on transportation? What about land-loss, especially around coastal marsh and swamp areas and beaches from increasingly violent weather, and the impact that would have on their local ecosystems and wildlife, most notable the systems that directly effect the fishing and seafood industries? What about the increase in the use of energy and fuel due to the amount of increasing usage of air-conditioners and heating units due to hotter summer temperatures and colder winters?

The last point is that why is the targeted number in the fuel emissions reduction five percent below that of 1992? If there has been an increase in the amount of fuel emissions since then, especially considering the rate of technological advancement? This is a question easily answerable by looking on the highways at the number of SUV's versus the number of compact/fuel efficient cars. And there is another issue which the Bush administration seems to have missed the boat on. Where Congress developed their own energy plans which would increase the rate of required standards for miles/gallon for new vehicles, and especially over SUV's, in the next few years, the Bush administrations policy, and the energy bill they had drafted, was a joke in comparison. If you want to accept any responsibility for the environmental impact of our consumer economy and lifestyle, don't propose legislation that includes no real changes. As we are in an age of fuel efficient cars, hybrid technology and the eventual usage of more advanced fuel sources such as hydrogen to power automobiles, promoting low increases in fuel standards is an obvious throw back to special interest politics that favor Bush's friendly oil companies and his own business interests and investments over the real possibility of economic freedom offered by advancing technology. By economic freedom I mean freedom from the need for foreign oil, which seems to be something very important to actual US citizens.

Perhaps it is an environmentally responsible solution that the Bush administration's funding of diplomatic resources is so low, but it is also not indicative of their professed diplomatic efforts. If this president had honestly valued diplomacy over direct action and multilateral versus unilateral tactics, than his financial support would have followed his principles and we'd see evidence of real diplomatic change and friendships around the world. Instead we have the largest military budget in history, the most advanced military technologies, which have yet to see the results that were promised almost a decade ago, and an alarming decrease in the integrity and influence of the United States around the world. Perhaps this wasn't the candidate to chose in 2000 after all. What is the candidate who lost doing right now? He is advocating for environmental change and positive international cooperation to improve economies through pollution free industries, a subject he just won a Nobel Prize for. That is a real American president.