How gun makers can help us - Los Angeles Times

How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition -- rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.

Here's a novel thought: Why not put gun makers in charge of reducing gun violence? I love the idea. Certainly gun manufacturers and dealers know better than anyone exactly how to make their guns safer. I'd be willing to bet that gun lobbies also know all the best ways to increase regulation, because they have to know in order to fight against them.

In fact I would be willing to gamble that gun control opponents probably know better than gun control advocates. So let's let them have a go at it. Anyone who's read through my blog knows that I'm generally opposed to guns. However, as I responded to a commenter, my opposition isn't to guns themselves, but to the violence that they engender.

So fine, keep your guns. Keep making them, maybe new gun jobs can save the American economy. I'm all for it. But, and this is a big but, take some responsibility for the violence caused by your product. Let's get the law abiding citizens and the hunters out of the debate.

I don't really object to a guy keeping a hunting rifle under lock and key in his own home, and I have generally lukewarm objections to licensed conceal and carry. So let's take the advice of Mr.'s Fagan and Sugarman, and stop trying so hard to regulate the guns via legislation. Just tell the gun makers to find a way to reduce violence. Can't do it? Fine, pay higher taxes.

I'm guessing that hunting rifles are generally used very rarely in inner city violence, so probably their prices would change very minimally. In fact, under this plan, their prices might even go down. Really feel the need to own an assault rifle? Do you really care if the price is a little higher? I doubt it.

Now, I'm almost certain that the gun control opponents will object to this very concept, because they much prefer the idea that they can pretend to be legislative victims and constitutional defenders. Still it's worth hoping for.

With High Gasoline Prices, Offshore Drilling Is Gaining Favor - NYTimes.com

Several elected and appointed Florida Republicans have publicly shifted their positions in the past week. Senator Mel Martinez said Tuesday that he would consider drilling as long as it is at least 50 miles off the coast. Nicki Grossman, vice chairwoman of the Florida Tourism Commission, said Wednesday that the high price of gasoline might be more of a threat than drilling.

Mr. Saunders, a Republican from Naples, said his opinion started to change after oil rigs near Louisiana survived Hurricane Katrina without major spills that reached the shore.

He did not mention that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did cause 124 smaller spills that released more than 700,000 gallons of petroleum products, according to Coast Guard estimates.

If we let them convince us to open up our coasts and national parks we lose more than we gain. Every expert out there will tell you that even if there was enough oil there to provide temporary energy independence, it will take years to develop.

Once we have it, prices might drop back to where they were before our recent run up, but what then? In another few years the low cost oil will start to wain again, and we're right back to where we are today. In fact we are worse off, because we will have perhaps more than a decade of cheap oil pressuring further demand behind us.

So now we have no oil, more demand, and we will have made virtually no progress in alternative energy sources. This is a political magic show. In one hand they show us energy independence and in the other they show us the democrats who won't let you have it. After the elections, poof, the energy independence disappears.

There is no quick fix to the oil problem. We have to let it shake itself out. With China dropping their government subsidies, we are already seeing what will happen as oil stabilizes. Americans are already finding ways to use less oil. We just have to be patient. As long as oil prices remain high, there is incentive to fix the problem for the long run. Don't believe the hype about new drilling.

And just to prove my point:

Dearth of Deep-Sea Drilling Ships Hinders Offshore Oil Search - NYTimes.com

Mr. Bush called on Congress Wednesday to end a longstanding federal ban on offshore drilling and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, arguing that the steps were needed to lower gasoline prices and bolster national security. But even as oil trades at more than $135 a barrel — up from $68 a year ago — the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig, executives and analysts said.

So realistically, even if we drop the ban, there's simply no way to produce that oil quickly. There aren't enough boats. It' just another gimmick to prey on the fears of Americans who are truly struggling to pay these high gas prices. If I thought it would work, I'd be selling it. It won't work.

McCain on Iran: Bush all over again | Salon

The problem with McCain's alarmist rhetoric throughout the presidential primaries and now in the general campaign is that he's got the Iran problem almost entirely wrong. Notwithstanding his deep résumé on national security matters, his statements seem to reflect little understanding of the realities America faces in terms of dealing with Iran. Moreover, despite how highly he rates the problem, and his own foreign policy credentials, McCain seems to have no clear plan for actually dealing with Iran.

Ever since 9/11 the Republican party has been using terrorism like a blunt instrument to beat the American electorate into submission. In every argument and every debate, they remind the world that they are, for whatever reason, the party that has claimed the title of terrorist hunter-killer.

The worst part is that the American electorate has taken the bait every single time. But for the first time the Democrats have a candidate who is willing to stand up and say, "No. I do not concede your superiority on this issue." In fact Obama has managed with some success to point out how the Republican party has in fact made things worse.

So now McCain is doing it again. Accusing Obama of being naive because he wants to sit down and talk with Iran. McCain, not surprisingly, wants to continue the Bush plan of pretending it will go away if we just don't look at it. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to list all the countries we have successfully defeated regimes in without any formal negotiations:

1.

So there you have it. The writer of this article has it right. Talk or fight. Our only two options to achieve change. McCain might not be willing to do either, so he may actually continue making things worse. Is that really what we want? I think not.

I'm not entirely sure it's in the best interests of a candidate for the US Presidency to create a webpage outlining all the lies and smears that his opponents have created. On the other hand, perhaps it is in fact the best way to diffuse the situation.

The Obama camp has created a site that details the smears, and rebuts them with truth. I read through it, and was both surprised at the absurdity of some of the lies, but also impressed with how easily they are dispelled.

For those who support Obama I recommend keeping a link to this site readily at hand to combat any forwards or statements from people you know. Send it out in bulk or just send it to those who have something to say, but read it yourselves so that you will know the truth.

www.fightthesmears.com

McCain, Obama present different views on taxes | Reuters

"We're going to scrub every agency of government and we're going to make them justify their existence. And if they can't, they're going to go out of existence," he said on CNBC.

Democrats argue not enough cuts could be made in the federal budget to pay for McCain's tax cuts, which Obama said would total $300 billion.

So here we are in the race for the national election. Obama is keeping the argument about the economy, which I think is wise. I still believe most Americans would come down on his side if the race were about national security, but his footing is less sure.

So instead the race is about whether the rich or the poor should carry the tax burden for our country. Historically the rich have always paid the bulk in dollars, and like to use those numbers to justify cuts, while the less money you have means that more of your dollars are needed to live.

I'm not in favor of trying to cripple corporations, or overburden the rich, but over the last seven years the rich have gotten richer, but our economy has weakened. The middle class and the poor have seen the power of their money erode and have found it more difficult to survive on the the same amount of money.

Too me this proves a failure in the idea that lower taxes for the rich stimulates the economy by definition. In reality, lower taxes for the rich simply creates more wealth for the rich. We are living in a global economy now, so lowering taxes for corporations doesn't by it's nature create jobs.

It's become to easy for a corporation to have a headquarters in the US where they can fight for their tax breaks while moving their labor force to a country that has lower wages. Why support that. If lowering corporate taxes actually generated vastly more jobs, I'd be all over it. However that's no longer the case.

We have to put more money into the pockets of the middle class. We have to have the rich share an equal percentage of the burden. Why is there a cap on the income that gets taxed for Social Security? If you have so much money that you don't feel you should have to give a piece of it like everybody else, then I suggest you remove yourself from the roles of people who will get Social Security.

McCain is claiming that Obama doesn't understand the American economy. I think it's the other way around. In reality Republicans play to their strengths. They get the religious right by promising judges that favor an overturn of Roe. They get the fiscal right by promising to keep the rich rich. They get the middle by talking national security.

I'm hoping that this year, it won't work. McCain is already trying to play to Obama's strengths, which means he's running a little scared. Obama needs to keep filling stadiums, driving into the Republican strongholds, force McCain either to far to the center to keep the right, or too far to the right to keep the center.

Relax, liberals. You've already won | Salon

For 40 years, the radical right tried to destroy the domestic and international order that American liberals created in the central decades of the 20th century. The people who are known today as "conservatives" are better described as "counterrevolutionaries." The goal of Barry Goldwater and the intellectuals clustered around William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review was not a slightly more conservative version of the New Deal or the U.N. system. They were reactionary radicals who dreamed of a counterrevolution. They didn't just want to stop the clock. They wanted to turn it back.

Living in Europe gives one a strange perspective on the changes and public opinions of the US. Obviously I am far removed from the everyday conversations, and the nights out at the Pub (I even use the term Pub) that would help me define my view of America today.

What I do see is an America in crisis. An America that is awaking from what seems a dream of the world W Bush sold them after 9/11. Our foreign policy is an abomination, our economy is collapsing, our dependence on oil is as bad as it was when he set out, our ground forces are stretched to thin to be of much use, and to top it all off his lapdog McCain is trying to become president.

There is a bright side. Both houses of congress have been retaken, and seem to be getting stronger, and as this article points out, in the weakest decades of liberal power and thought, the liberal agenda has stood firm, and in some areas moved forward. I enjoyed this article, so I won't go into more depth. Read it.

Why the oil boom will eventually bust - Jun. 6, 2008

The oil bulls are correct in their explanations of why prices have jumped. It's indisputable that worldwide demand has surged, chiefly driven by strong growth in China, India and the Middle East. It's also true that most of the world's reserves are controlled by governments in places like Russia and Venezuela that mismanage production, thus curtailing supply growth.

But rather than forming a permanent new plateau for prices - as the bulls contend - those forces are causing a classically unstable market that's destined for a steep fall.

Tully makes a reasonable sounding argument that high oil prices are only here temporarily, and that a shakeout is inevitable. He compares the run-up of oil to the recent housing market crash, the tech boom of the late 90's, and the silver market of the 80's. Sure sounds like there's a lot of history saying he's right.

Problem is that oil is more complex than these problems. I do believe that the price of oil is overinflated. There's no reason to be paying $130 a barrel. This number has been artificially inflated by things like panic, speculation, and strangely high oil prices.

However the belief that oil prices will return to their former glory, especially in the US, is a little naive. First and foremost one has to realize that the US is not driving consumption anymore. When our country was the one using all the oil, we could affect prices more directly.

Now the people using all the oil are in China, India, and other developing nations. Those people are not only using the majority of the oil, but their demand is growing rapidly as supplies diminish. Certainly more supplies will be found, but so far no one has been able to demonstrate that new supplies can be found to replace the ones we have at dramatically lower prices and in equal amounts.

So far new oil supplies will cost more and produce less than anything out there. Demand in the US will go down, that's already been proven, but as long as demand continues to increase in the developing world, there's no incentive for oil prices to drop.

The best solution is to simply plan on high prices. In theory prices might go back to $3 a gallon, but I think that's some time off. In the meantime we need to be developing alternatives. Solar thermal, wind, low carbon coal, even gas additives like ethanol.

As long as we continue to believe that the overly cheap gasoline of our past will return, we hesitate to do what we must to free ourselves from the prison of oil dependency. Regardless of the truth of "peak oil" we should act as though it's true, and that it's happening right now.

Our country gains nothing from continued oil dependency. What we could gain from freeing ourselves is impossible to see fully. However, we certainly gain a lead in world technology, new high tech jobs, an improved more stable economy, and more US money being spent in the US. I think it's worth the pain now.

Philip Pullman leads author revolt against age banding for children's books - Telegraph

Mr Pullman told The Daily Telegraph: "I don't mind anybody having an opinion about my books. I don't mind a bookseller deciding they are for this age group or that, or a teacher giving one of my books to a child because they think it is appropriate.

"But I don't want to see the book itself declaring officially, as if with my approval, that it is for readers of 11 and upwards or whatever. I write books for whoever is interested. When I write a book I don't have an age group in mind.

Here's a brilliant plan: we're facing a time in the US where our understanding of literacy has gone up dramatically, but our ability to teach it has not. We have forced many schools to make literacy the primary focus of education (which I generally think is OK in the younger years), so how about we print children's books with a "do not read me" sticker on the front.

Age banding. What a moronic thing to do. Try to imagine a struggling young 10 year old going to the store and walking out with a book that says 7+ on it. Or carrying that book to school. With a great deal of luck that kid might enjoy the book, and profit from having read it, but I think it's incredibly unlikely that he/she will ever read it at all.

Reading is not a natural phenomenon. By which I mean people don't pick it up through exposure like speaking. It has to be taught. Teaching reading ain't easy. There are dozens of factors that go into it before kids even reach school, at which time our over worked and under payed teachers are too often ill equipped to teach reading properly.

So kids need every advantage we can give them, and certainly don't need any outside discouragement. Anything that might make it harder for children to enjoy reading is, in my opinion, wrong in basic concept.

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too | Threat Level from Wired.com

McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said.

The continued popularity or John McCain is somewhat astonishing to me. Exactly how do you support a politician that doesn't have a position on anything. I guess you go by his voting record. In that case John McCain is not a centrist.

In any case he has decided that it's entirely OK for the President to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant. Of course, earlier when that was controversial and before he was the Republican nominee, he opposed it.

Now that he's wooing the right, he favors it again. As with most of Bush's policies, McCain disavows them when necessary, but supports them regardless.

I was reading today that some of Clinton's angry, and in my opinion stupid, supporters have started a new organization to support McCain. How is that possible? How can democrats support this man? Can they really be so bitter about Clinton that they would punish the whole country?

McCain will lead us down a dark and unsteady path. The rich will continue to get richer, our enemies will continue to get stronger, gays and lesbians will be persecuted, roe vs wade will almost surely be overturned. How can democrats support this man?

California set for gay marriage ballot showdown | Politics | Reuters

"Values voters have even more reason to go to the polls in 2008," said Tony Perkins, a leading religious conservative who is president of the Family Research Council.

Initiatives to ban gay marriage played a role in President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election as they propelled the Republican Party's conservative Christian base to the polls.

Not that many months ago I read Barack Obama's last book. My girlfriend was trying to get me to understand him better as his campaign warmed up in the fall. It worked. Generally, I supported him somewhat before I read the book, but I threw al my support behind him after I read it.

One area that has led to repeated conversations with my girlfriend and with others down the pub has been gay marriage. Obama supports civil unions, and basically believes that gays should have the same legal rights as everyone else. He doesn't however support legalizing gay marriage.

This get a little tricky because religion and law have gotten so tangled when it comes to marriage. It's not that Obama doesn't think gays should be allowed to marry, he opposes the government forcing churches to do anything. And at least in that respect I agree.

So here's my proposal (largely worked out with or stolen directly from my girlfriend). Let's take marriage out of the law altogether. Let's leave marriage to the the churches. They can have it. It's a largely symbolic act anyway.

Let's remove any legal consequence of marriage. No tax implications, no survivor implications, no insurance implications. Let whoever wants to get married get married. If the churches as a whole want to refuse to marry gays, then fine. Gays can certainly still hold the same kinds of ceremonies, because I'm guessing that a few people out there are wise enough to recognize that love has nothing to do with gender.

Now, how do we handle all that legal stuff we left behind? My feeling is some of it can be dealt with easily. My feeling is that a person should be able to select who gets their survivor benefits regardless of their marital status. However I know that that would be controversial for some.

So how bout creating a civil union that works for anyone. Create a divide between ceremonial marriage and legal union. Two wholly separate entities. The more closed minded religious folks are afraid that gay marriage will somehow destroy the traditional family, but the traditional family is already dying.

It has been since women started looking for equal rights. Most marriages end in divorce and the dysfunctional family has become the norm. I say anyone capable of creating a home of love and happiness ought to be given a shot at it.

November is the battleground. I'm afraid Florida might be a lost cost in this as is so many things, but California is moving in the right direction. If we can block this. Keep this from happening, it proves that people are waking up to a newer for forward looking, open minded world.

So the final votes have been cast, and I have the advantage of being awake six hours before the East Coast. The last two primaries went as expected as Obama took Montana, and Clinton took South Dakota. The counts of delegates I've read show Obama with enough to clinch the nomination.

Now Clinton could argue that Obama only has enough when you count his super delegates, and that they can still change their minds, but I hope she won't. It is really and truly time to call it a day. Time to do what she said she would do and get out there and rally the troops for Obama.

I think the US has the best opportunity it's had in many years to really shake up Washington. Democrats could take a larger majority of Congress, and we could have a Democratic president, and maybe, just maybe we could get some things done.

But McCain will not be easy to beat. He is quick on his feet and changes his political position based on who he's talking to. When he speaks, most people hear what they want to hear. This is evidenced by the fact that some democrats still see him as a viable candidate.

So we need every gun in the arsenal firing. It's time for Clinton to admit that her campaign is over and that what's best for the party is her campaigning for the party. We need to get Obama a running mate, and get him full force into the field. He's got to shore up support in key democratic strongholds, and then get out there and destroy the republican ones.

It's game time.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Medical charity helping US poor

Some 60% of RAM's work is now carried out in the United States.

On a wet, spring weekend he lands his vintage World War II aircraft - once used to drop American troops on D-Day - in Lafayette, Tennessee.

He bought the plane to parachute medics into the jungle.

Today he is unloading dentists' chairs from the plane into a pickup truck.

It bothers me to read this kind of story. It makes me ashamed to be an American. I think it's awful that a charity set up to help the third world spends most of it's time on US soil helping Americans. What's worse is that so many Americans still don't want to fix the problem.

The issue of making health care available to everyone shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't even be debatable. The only debate should be how and how quickly. Instead we're wrapped up in illogical fears of universal health care.

Can someone please explain why universal health care would be so awful. How does having the richest medical establishment in the world help us when almost 50 million of us can't get basic health services? It's infuriating. This election cycle might finally be the key.

We have to help the democrats hold Congress, and we have to put Obama in the big chair. It's time to rebuild America.

Senate Opens Debate on Politically Risky Bill Addressing Global Warming - NYTimes.com

“There’s a great feeling all across America by people in small villages and towns to large cities to state legislatures and others: we must move and move now,” Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and a co-sponsor of the bill, said as debate opened on the floor. “Do something. Doing nothing is not an option. Let us do something.”

I Have to admit that I'm glad to see the Senate stepping up. Perhaps it's because the president's numbers are in the toilet, or perhaps it's because it's an election year, but I'm glad to see them doing something.

I'd really like to see more details on the bill. I'm a big fan of cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions. It gives high carbon producers both a way to stay in the business, but also incentive to change. It also provides money for reinvestment in alternative energy programs.

I'm a little curious about the treatment of foreign countries. I like the idea of forcing them to comply with emissions guidelines, but I'm afraid we may be shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. I'd need to hear the details.

Also I'm not so sure I like the idea of American carbon producers being able to buy offsets overseas. Why not force them to buy offsets in the US. One of the main objectives here is to reduce our own carbon emissions, while creating new world jobs. Why in God's name would we want to send more money and jobs overseas?

Still I think the bill is on the right track. And the senators are right, at some point you just have to get started, or nothing ever happens.

How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space! - CNN.com

"A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the report said.

The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations.

"The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said.

I've been reading more and more lately about some really unconventional means of generating power. The growth in solar thermal for instance seems very practical, and has the added benefit of already being available.

The idea of sending solar satellites up is one I love to imagine working. It's an area that the US has a limited window to take the lead on, and should have done so decades ago. Much like so much of the new technologies of today, if we don't take action another nation will.

I would like to see the US pioneer this, or at least set up a multi-nation group to get this moving. Getting even a portion of an orbiting power system in place allows for the considering of many options. These panels can generate vast amounts of power, so that each one could significantly reduce a nation's dependence on oil or coal.

We would have to make sure that we also don't become entirely dependent on these satellites, however, as the slow race to militarize space starts to pick up pace. With China proving it can knock satellites out of orbit, we don't want to give them the power to obliterate an entire power structure.

Still the concept has a great deal of promise, and I wouldn't mind seeing more about it. I'd love to see some talk about power stations on the Moon as well. In any case, I'll be keeping watch on this story to develop.

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign - CNN.com

"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."

Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.

After reading this article you might ask me, "Mark, what exactly is that article about?" Unfortunately I'm not really sure. It seems to be about the DNC meeting this weekend to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan. My feeling is that this shouldn't even be an issue on the table, but I understand the reality of politics.

But instead of actually writing a story about the meeting, this is a story about an election campaign Obama ran a little over a decade ago. In that campaign he used a rule, that by all accounts is regularly used, to remove his competition.

The writers of the article have trouble finding anyone who will criticize Obama for the use of this tactic. In fact most people quoted in the article seem to be trying to make it clear that this is a non-story, especially in Chicago politics.

Still the writers use fun language tricks to make it seem like there are contradictions where none exist. Let me give you an example:

Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign - CNN.com

"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," the senator is quoted as saying in the Tribune. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

But in that same newspaper story, Obama praised Palmer.

"I thought she was a good public servant," he said.

See that fun "But" in the middle there. It's supposed to indicate that the following lines demonstrate a contradiction in Obama's story, and make him look shady. In fact what Obama said is that if you can't keep your campaign in order, maybe your not the best choice as our representative, but that doesn't change the fact that she was a good public servant.

It seems clear this article was written by folks who don't really like Obama that much, and are trying to find something, anything, to write about him in a negative way. Perhaps their deadline approached to quickly, but I find it to be ill researched.

What's worse is that the article tries to draw a parallel with what happened in 1996 and what is happening in Florida and Michigan. But the two are completely unrelated. Obama didn't ask for these states to be removed from the process. He didn't lobby them to move their Primary.

Obama simply followed the rules as given to him by the DNC. He didn't campaign, and he had his name removed from the ballot in Michigan. Now 5 months later, Clinton wants them back on the roles, because she's about to lose the race. How is it fair to Obama that Clinton get states granted to her that he wasn't allowed to campaign in?

And let's be honest. Being the first two races, and without any campaigning Obama managed to pull in over 30% of the vote in Michigan from write ins. How might he have faired if he had been allowed to campaign. This race might have been over months ago. Either way, Obama didn't create this problem, the DNC created this problem.

Gasoline prices | Salon Technology

Even the people who have spent their entire lives studying the price of oil don't know for sure how to weigh each factor for responsibility in the total equation. Perhaps the safest thing to say is that it's all in there, in my $65 receipt. Kidnappings of oil executives in Nigeria and the nationalization of Exxon-operated facilities in Venezuela. Chinese economic growth and hedge fund manipulation. ANWR and air quality. The price of gas in the United States is a consequence of global economic growth, rising standards of living, greed, politics and the stresses induced by 6.5 billion people going about their business on a planet with limited resources.

Gas prices continue to break records every day. As I continue along the road to planning my return to the States, even I have begun to get a little nervous about paying to fill the tank. My overall plan involves living where I have to drive less, and eventually using more fuel efficient transportation, but that won't be the case from day 1, unfortunately.

So like everyone else, I'd like to know the full story. The article above gives a pretty good overview of exactly why the price of gasoline continues to skyrocket. I still maintain that high prices are good for America over the long term.

This process was inevitable. There was no way to avoid it. Drilling for more oil might have delayed the inevitable for a few years, but considering the incredible growth in demand in the east, I doubt it would have helped much. Eventually, no matter what, the world will have to switch from a global oil economy to something else.

The truth is that making that switch was never likely to be a slow easy process. Realistically, people don't start really making changes in their lives unless forced to. So gas prices had to reach a point that they simply could no longer be afforded, and then people would start making changes.

From here, we have to try to make this transition as easy as possible, and I would like to see some ideas on at least halting the rise of gasoline. Better regulations on trade, as mentioned in the article, seem like a good start.

It's funny in a sad sort of way that the US government, under the Republicans, has been dragging it's feet over increasing fuel economy in cars for most of the last decade. I guess the market forces finally did the work for them.

So the primary season is drawing to a close. The final week is FINALLY here. What does that mean exactly? Well, Hillary is still putting up the good fight, and if it weren't for her less than honest tactics I might even be rooting for her at this point.

Unfortunately, she's out there fighting for bringing back Florida and Michigan, which she opposed until she needed the votes, and now her husband is on the campaign train talking about a conspiracy to keep her from winning.

Bill Clinton: 'Coverup' hiding Hillary Clinton's chances - CNN.com

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate.

"She is winning the general election today, and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.

"Her only position was, 'Look, if I lose, I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win, but let's let everybody vote and count every vote,' " he said.

The former president suggested that if the New York senator ended the primary season with an edge in the popular vote, it would be a significant development.

I can understand there being some hard feelings, but I'm not sure that a general conspiracy to knock her out of the race exists. I think believing that the DNC could get together with the press and somehow create a strategy for electing Obama, who Bill claims is the weaker candidate has the feeling of a last desperate act.

But it doesn't stop there. Hillary invoked slavery in her argument about adding back Florida's votes, and not only that, but she's admitted that the strength of the party comes second to her own ambition. I'm not sure she's ready to drop out at the end of this week. She's still got few rocks to throw.

Commentary: No graceful bow-out for Clinton - CNN.com

In the past few days, her surrogates, and even Clinton herself, have ramped up the talk about sexism. There is little doubt that she is trying to stir the ire of her female base and push them to demand that she either be the nominee or be given the vice president slot. But it's really about the former rather than the latter.

In Florida on Wednesday, she invoked slavery and the epic civil rights battle against Jim Crow in her quest to count the vote in Florida as-is.

Forget the fact that she once said the states wouldn't matter because they broke the rules.

On the bright side, Obama has decided to turn his attention to the general election, and stop allowing McCain a free ride into November. McCain who was clearly still gearing up for the fight, has hit a few snags, that he might have been able to get through quietly, but Obama was there to shine the light.

McCain attempted to clear his campaign of all the professional lobbyists before that question arose in the general, but I'm not sure he expected every media outlet in the country to start looking at what kind of person was on his staff. So now his campaign is in a little disarray, and he will have to pull it together to get back in the race.

But in the meantime, he's got our beloved president out raising cash. Now McCain doesn't want to get too close, so they've mostly avoided the media, but Bush is still friends with the richest people in America, so I'm sure McCain will happily take the money. It's best he does it now in the early stages of the race, so he can further distance himself from Bush Later.

Bush put it best when he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that if supporting McCain won the election he would support McCain, but if being against McCain won him the election he'd be against him, he just wanted McCain to win. Nice.

Obama was smart enough to be paying attention.

McCain does tricky dance with unpopular Bush - CNN.com

During a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama knocked him for holding the fundraiser in private.

"Today, John McCain is having a different kind of meeting. He's holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in Arizona. No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why," Obama said. "Sen. McCain doesn't want to be seen, hat in hand, with the president whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years.

"But the question for the American people is: Do we want to continue George Bush's policies?" he said.

I do get a certain amount of satisfaction from the fact that they seem to have had trouble selling enough tickets to the event. Good on you America, for finally standing up to Bush.

Does Constitution apply to enemy combatant on U.S. soil? - CNN.com

In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the United States, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.

On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, Illinois, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.

There are few things in the world that scare me, and few that should scare you, as much as the President of the United States having the power to invade your home, arrest you, and hold you indefinitely without trial. I can't even understand how this is controversial. It's unquestionably wrong.

I've read the constitution, and just for fun, I went back and reviewed the language. Just to be clear it says,

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So what does that all mean? Basically that you can't put people in prison indefinitely without a trial. You can't arrest people and take away their stuff and hold them on suspicion of a crime. Just to be sure we get it, the next amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial.

I understand that the president has declared the man an enemy combatant, but does he really get to just pick anyone he chooses? The amendment above seems to indicate that the person has to be in active service in the military. Shouldn't the government have to present that case somewhere.

I'm not saying the guy is innocent but he was in the US legally, studying (poorly) at university. This is not easily defined as enemy combatant. If the president wants to change the nature of the term, I think he should do that legally before arresting US residents.

You might think to yourself that you are OK with the government turning people so obviously guilty of a crime into enemy combatants, but that's a slippery slope to negotiate. Once the president is allowed to name anyone who he chooses as an enemy combatant we have lost any moral authority to stop him from taking US citizens.

One might laugh at the idea of the president removing political adversaries in the night, and moving them to military prison, but I would have called this whole situation absurd a few years ago. These sorts of unfortunate changes move slowly, inexorably, and dangerously forward until we yell stop.

McCain denies 'flip-flop' on Hamas, blasts Obama - CNN.com

McCain said the United States would not be able to avoid a dialogue with the Islamic militant group.

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another," he said at the time. "And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas, because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice ...

"But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

I am constantly amazed at the skill and speed with which McCain can change positions and then accuse people of supporting something he supported only a short time ago. I have this image in my head of McCain sitting in policy meeting with his staff and asking, "What do the people want to hear?" and "Will that get me elected?" as each topic comes up.

I wouldn't even mind so much if McCain actually admitted that his thoughts changed on a subject. I really feel that politicians have the same right to change their mind as anyone else does, but you have to admit that you changed your mind. And then maybe not attack people for agreeing with you before you changed your mind.

I'm still curious exactly how McCain developed a reputation for being a straight talking, honest politician. That's some of the best media spin I've encountered. But just for fun, and because I still hear from democrats that say they will vote for McCain in the fall, I found this fun little list:

McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list - The Carpetbagger Report

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”

McCain action helped Arizona developer: report | Reuters

Upset with a state law that restricted development around the base, SunCor representatives met with McCain's staff to lobby for funding, USA Today reported, citing the company's president at the time, John Ogden.

The Air Force later paid SunCor $3 million for 122 acres near the base -- three times its assessed value and twice the military's estimated value, the newspaper said.

I feel really good about McCain's attack on special interest groups. I feel confident that he will stand up and help secure hard working Americans in the fight against lobbyists. I feel that because of his solid record on this issue.

What's really amazing to me is that McCain not only clearly supported a land deal designed to enrich a campaign contributer, but that he stands by it. That leads me to believe that he really has no concept of what he's doing or how it looks to the American people. Talk about being out of touch.

Of course, his people claim that the deal was broadly supported and even requested by the air force, but then why pay so much? Why pay vastly more than it's worth? When the military shows that you've overpaid for something, I have to believe you've really over paid.

In the end, John McCain will try to ignore this, hoping that the large bulk of the American people will never notice, and thanks to Obama's plan to run a clean campaign it won't get talked up even while McCain is accusing Obama of supporting terrorism.

What makes me really furious is all the Clinton supporters who claim they will toss their support behind McCain when Clinton loses. Let me reiterate a few fun facts:

• McCain unequivocally supports overturning Roe vs. Wade.
• McCain supports the global gag rule.
• McCain is antagonistic on effective sex education, instead supporting abstinence-only education.
• McCain is not sure but pretty confident that he doesn't support the use of contraceptives.

How can any woman alive support McCain? Simple he keeps all this out of his stump speeches, and has occasionally changed his positions to make them hard to pin down. Don't buy in!