Let me repeat that; YOU HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

You were given this right by the Founding Fathers when they were building this great country of ours. They knew what they were doing, because they had seen oppressive systems in other countries, and they did not want the people in this country to not have a voice. So, not only was this a country a country for the people and by the people, but the people had a voice as well.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers did not take into account Don Imus and Opie and Anthony, but I wouldn't be sure about that.

The Founding Fathers were certainly aware that not everyone would agree. People would say things that were offensive and terrible, yet they did not say anything about limiting what these people could and could not say. They never put limits on what anyone could say.

Carlos Mencia talked about the situation the other week, and he made several good points, and doesn't understand what the big deal is. Remember words don't hurt, unless you let them. If you don't believe me, you can kiss my ass. No really, come on over and kiss my ass. I don't hear any knocking on my door. Why, because my words had no meaning. You could ignore them.

Now, I'm not agreeing with what Imus said in any way, shape or form. I do agree he had a right to say what he said, especially considering he was a shock jock. It wasn't like he was doing a Christian program and said those things. Sure, his employers can control some of what he says, but like I said, he was a shock jock!

Why isn't Al Sharpton being seriously criticized for saying the Mormons are godless? Nobody has said anything about that, but everyone gets on Don Imus. Now, I don't like Don Imus, don't listen to him and don't care about him. He said he was trying to make a joke, and it was pretty bad. Apparently Al Sharpton may have been trying to make a joke, but still, nobody has said a word. I'm not going to say anything, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Now, the girls on the Rutgers team played the race and victim card, even though nothing really happened to them. Then they turned around and appeared everywhere and anywhere they could to talk about it. Ironically, you could almost say they prosituted themselves to get out there and say they weren't ho's. Interesting.

They didn't get hurt, and in fact made out quite well out of all of this. They had every right to go out and talk about it, but everything got so blown out of proportion it wasn't even funny. In a country where real race issues barely make the pages of newspapers, this one gripped the country for a week. It got so blown out of proportion that most people couldn't tell you who won the championship (Tennessee by the way), and all they remember is this Rutgers team.

Now, Opie and Anthony, another pair of shock jocks on XM radio are getting suspended for a time because of a bit they did that was very sexual and involving the queen, Condi Rice, and Laura Bush. I didn't hear it, and whether I would've thought it was funny or not doesn't matter. First off, they are on satellite radio, where people are PAYING to hear them. I'm assuming people who listen to them know who they are what they are capable of doing. More importantly, they want to hear these guys. Suspending them is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I don't get this country anymore. Certain people can say anything, but other people sneeze wrong and they get suspended. Everyone gets offended easily, and you can't look cross-eyed without getting your head bitten off.

This country needs to get toughen up. Words don't hurt unless you let them. Yes, these men are in a position where they have some responsibilty and are in the public eye. But they can also be criticized for what they say and do. They should've been ripped apart and had others talking a little about what they said. Let's be honest however, if it wasn't for the media blowing the whole thing out of proportion, then most people wouldn't even know what was said, and they wouldn't care.

Now the media tends to get a hold of these stories and goes crazy with them. Don't believe me, tell me why there was 24/7 coverage of Anna Nicole Smith? I mean Anna Fr$&@$^# Nicole Smith?? She wasn't even the most famous playmate ever (Pam Anderson and Jenny McCarthy are most famous), but here we were treating Anna Nicole Smith like she was Marilyn Monroe.

This country should be different. It is a great country, but it could be better. You should be able to say what you want in this country. Sure people may disagree with you and even strongly disagree with you, but that is what makes this country great. You have a variety of people with a variety of opinions. You want people thinking the same thing? They had that in Germany in the 1930s. It's called brainwashing.

I should be able to say what I want. If someone has a problem with it, they should be able to tell me. I shouldn't have to worry about what I say to someone. Sure there are times and places for everything. I shouldn't be able to go into my boss and call her a bitch anymore than I should be able to go and grab her ass. It isn't right. I can tell her those things, but I will pay a price.

Don Imus and Opie and Anthony are shock jocks and that is part of their jobs. Like I said what they said wasn't right, but the Rutger girls certainly didn't get hurt by it. They got a lot of face time and each girl got her face in the news. Don't know how the two white girls feel about the whole thing, because they were barely seen. I don't even know if anyone asked them any questions. Like I said, what was said and done was offensive and in bad taste even for a joke, but to say people overreacted is an understatement. As for the black community jumping behind the girls, just remember Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson jumped behind the stripper in the Duke Lacrosse case, and that didn't turn out so well. I've never heard them apologize for prosecuting those kids in the public eye. I've never even heard them admit they were wrong.

In short there are real race issues in this country, and those cases need to be addressed. Giving credence to these type of pseudo issues is troubling and it is going to make the divide between cultures in this country wider and wider. Why did it matter that the Va Tech kid was Korean? Can't we focus on the tragedy itself? Why is ho bad, yet Pimp my ride and Pimp in general is okay, considering it's the other side of the same coin? Why are whites still considered oppressing, when I have never owned slaves, never oppressed anyone and never hung out with the KKK? Yet, I'm supposed to apologize for my skin color? Why do homosexuals say they want to be treated the same, yet need a gay parade and gay days in Disney World? Why do blacks want to be called African Americans, yet most have never been to Africa, no closer to being African than I am being Polish, and even after slavery was over didn't go back to Africa (this last part according to Carlos Mencia). Why do whites don't seem to think there is a race problem, yet most of the really rich and those in political power are white.

And see, there in lies the problem. Minorities look around and see the old, rich white men are in power. So, the man holding them back is still a white man. That then gets transferred to all whites. In reality, I have more in common with hard working minorities than the whites running the country. I can't relate to them, but I have been nearly homeless, on welfare, and pretty much flat broke. Those I can relate to. Losing nearly a billion dollars and still being worth tens of millions like Donald Trump, I can't relate to.

Personally, I think some of the race issues in this country are stirred up by the media. It takes away from the fact we should all be keeping an eye on what they're doing to us in Washington. I do think there are issues, because I can't relate to being pulled over because of my race, or being profiled or anything like that. Yet, I don't think the free speech line should be obliterated for the sake of feelings. We need to keep our freedoms, because the government is taking away quite a few on their own. We shouldn't be taking them away on ourselves. We need to make sure we keep what the Founding Fathers made sure to give us. We may not like what is said, but we do have choices; confront it, talk about it, or ignore it.

Remember: Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

In my recent readings, I read a book called "Hubris" by David Corn. Now, I've talk about this book before and how it deals with exactly what happened to make the Iran War happen. It started a year or so before we actually invaded. It started before 9/11 which the excuse this administration uses when it wages the war. "Support the troops, and we can't leave. If we leave the terrorists win." Basically, if we sneeze and short out all the bugs in our phones the terrorists have won. They are using the whole terrorists thing as a piss poor excuse to continue a war we had no business being in to being with.

But this article isn't about the war. Well, not really. We may touch back on it from time to time, but only to re-establish a point or two. The discussion this time is the arrogance of this administration, as well as what we might have to look forward to in the future.

Dick Cheney, the master of not blinking, has decried that the Democrats are allowing the terrorists to win with their proposal of a time table, along with their war budget. I'm sorry, but isn't this the same man who was certain we'd be greeted as liberators and that the war wouldn't go very long? Despite having a heart attack, I'm sure it was staged to just simply show the man had a hear to begin with.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and many many others have kept feeding us the same lines for the last six plus years. Unfortunately, enough people in this country were foolish enough to believe them the last time the Presidential election occurred. Although the more people I talk to, the more I wonder. I have run into very few people who actually voted for Bush the last time. Although maybe they are so embarassed by not seeing through the sham the last time, they don't want to admit it. However, it is interesting to see the number of people who didn't vote for the man. I'm wondering if maybe we dreamed the whole thing, and we're in the middle of Dante's Inferno right now. That would explain quite a number of things.

But let's face reality. We're in the middle of a war, and we're getting even closer to another one. I'm not sure if anyone knows the rules of NATO, but if England ends up having to go into Iran to get out the hostages, we may have to go as well. If the United Nations passes another resolution saying it's okay to go to war, that will be that. I doubt the UN will go that far. I think they will try and hold that off as much as possible, but you don't know. It was touchy what the USA was going to do before all of this. But with the addition of a hostage situation, you have just added fuel to a fire that didn't need lit.

From things I've read, I know the USA was planning Iraq before Bush actually didn't get elected the first time. He had some issues and felt he could push around the Middle East a bit. He had men on the ground in Iraq a full two years before the war began, and nearly a year before 9/11. They were getting intel about Iraq before anyone even suspected they were planning a war. The Bush proclamation was, "we're going to war, find us a reason." Of course, with the arrogance of the whole administration, everything they came across that would later become the fuel they would use for the war, was totally wrong. They told the American public a story, and the public bought it. They sounded so confident and sure of themselves, how could they be wrong? Of course anyone with any brains in their head would have questioned all of their so-called logic from the moment they hinted at a war. However, they were all smart, been around, paraded Colin Powell out there in front of everyone, and sounded like they had put all of the pieces together. Colin Powell was the one in the administration the public trusted the most, so they had him out there front and center selling the whole thing. They did a masterful job and selling the country.

Okay, as you can plainly see, I lied about not talking about Iraq, but there is a purpose. I just hope you see it before the article is over.

Now, we have talk about Iran. Again, from what I've read and understand, they've been planning on going into Iran for at least a year. They haven't stepped up the plan because Iraq has gone so badly. They didn't feel they could convince the public we needed to go into another middle east country. The funny thing is that Iraq has been the more serious threat all along. They have been a threat for at least five years. They have been working on a nuclear program for at least that long, if not longer. Along with North Korea, they are probably the most immediate threat in the world, and considering where they are at, that puts them right in the middle of the hottest hotspot in the world. Not a really good combination.

The reason they didn't invade Iran first? That is a harder question that would have to ask the Bush administration. After all, since the invasion into Afghanistan, the administration has taken quite a turn that nobody quite understands. If they would have done that and tried to sell everyone on Iran, nobody would have bit. Why? Nobody knows anything about Iran. You say nobody knows anything about Iraq, well they do know who Saddam Hussein is. That is what the administration did; sold you Saddam. They built him up as the second coming of Adolf Hitler rather than a two bit knock off. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, because he was a horrible human being. But he wasn't any worse than dozens of other dictators in the world. But if you listened to Bush, he made him sound like Ghengis Khan and Napolean all rolled into one.

Supposedly the plan was to walk through Iraq, and then build up along the border so they could go into Iran. They finally decided that Iran deserved some attention, so they wanted to set up bases in Iraq and use them to get into Iran. They were so confident in what they had planned, they even put millions of dollars away for a victory day in Iraq. Now here we are, into year five. We are escalating to the levels we had there two years ago, and what they expect to change I have no idea. They seem pretty sure that this little upswing in numbers will turn everything around. Once again, George Bush has told everyone to give his plan a chance. Haven't we done that for four years now? Exactly how giving him chance after chance has helped us I'm still not sure. But every time someone opposes his views and ideas, they nearly label the person a traitor. Don't believe me, remember what Dick Cheney said about Nancy Pelosi. He questioned her patriotism, and he nearly lumped her in with the terrorists. What he has exactly done for this country short of trying to get rid of another lawyer the hard way, I can't really think of anything?

Rumsfeld was sure where the weapons of mass destruction were, and then when they couldn't find anything that didn't come out of military surplus, he simply denied it. When he was asked directly about his comments, he denied he ever made the comments, despite the fact you could recall them at the drop of a hat. He was still arrogant enough that he felt he could deny everything, and the people would buy it.

That is the other problem with this administration. Well, they actually have quite a lot, like lying profusely, having no domestic agenda, being for big business, and you can add simply denying everything. They either lie, and then they turn around and deny everything they ever said. I would say they deny everything that ever backfired, but that pretty much covers everything. Lie, Lie, and then when that doesn't work, just deny.

Well, the question you are probably now asking is why would they go into Iran with everything that has happened? Well, they still don't have a domestic policy, so other than talk about the war for the next two years, what else are they going to do? January 20th, 2009 is a long way aways. So unless they plan on spending all that time trying to explain away the latest fiasco (Veteran's hospitals) or more questions on the war, they're going to have to come up with something else. I really don't blame them for Veteran's hospitals. Anyone who has worked in one will tell you they have been in shambles for quite some time. The problem I have with Bush is he rallied around the troops, told everyone to support the troops, and he had the direct power to do something about the troops, but didn't do anything about it. He used the troops for his benefit, and then didn't do them any favors in return.

So rather than explaining all of that again and again, they're going to need something else to talk about. They most likely are planning and replanning situations to get a "good" invasion into Iran. It's going to be tough, simply because we don't have the troops to do it, but they may try. I'm concerned that they are already running the troops a little ragged, and now they're going to be fighting in three different places. Yeah, I said three. Don't forget that there are troops still in Afghanistan, and then you'd be adding Iran. You would be nearly crippled if anything happened here in this country. Hey, maybe the terrorists are waiting for a timetable, but it isn't the timetable everyone thinks. Maybe they're waiting for us to invade, then they'll attack again. We'll be so spread out, we won't be able to defend ourselves here. I'm not sure if that is a plan, but it could be.

Btw; a few side notes.
> There were no terrorists in Iraq, until after we invaded.
>Haliburton (company Cheney used to work for) has connections to many of the companies getting defense contracts.
>Where are they going to get more troops if they are short now? Hmmmm....draft anyone?
>Why wouldn't you have back-up plans when doing something like this? Even sports teams have back-ups if the first ones aren't working right.
>Name one Bush policy on domestic affairs.
>Doesn't anyone see that we are doing the same thing the Soviet Union used to do, except instead of spreading Communism, we're spreading Democracy.
>What do we do if we get inside Iran and they are closer to a nuclear weapon than we thought, and they can use it?
>still trying to name a Bush policy? Good luck.
>How long did the "we're going to work together" talk between Bush and the Democrats actually last? A weekend? Guess who called that one?

Despite all of this, the Bush administration would want you to believe all is well in the world, and they have everything under control. They still are arrogant enough to think people will actually believe them because Bush is the President. It doesn't matter that he has lied throughout his entire administration, and lead us down a path we ought not to have travelled.

"I'm the President. I'm the decider, and you have to believe me," he chuckles, like the fool he is.

Hopefully, this fool will back off of Iran for now. We are walking a very fine line, but we can't afford another war right now. Maybe going in full force from Iraq would do it, but then you would have a civil war next door in the country you're fighting in. That does not make for a very good situation. We definitely need to keep an eye on Iran, because they are a very serious threat, but we have to rethink our options in Iraq if we have any hope of doing anything with Iran. The rest of the world already hates us, so let's not have all of our troops overseas and give them an opportunity to do anything about it.

Sincerely, the Novak Notebook.

Anyway, we still have this President until Jan.20, 2009. Hopefully at that point, this long National Nightmare will be over. In the meantime, you have all the other men and women who have said that everything is so messed up by this President, it is going to take a lot of hard work to even try and get us back on the right course. That is something that always amazes me. First, how everyone can spend tens of millions of dollars for a job that pays nearly five hundred thousand dollars a year. The second thing is that nearly every candidate has talked about how hard the job will be, and how horrendous a job this President is doing, yet everyone is willing to step in and try and take up the challenge. I'm sorry, but I've seen what this guy has done, and I wouldn't want any part of the job after the mess that has been made. He has put the next person who becomes President in an unwinnable position. The only thing is that they will look better no matter what they do compared to this President.

But now let the mudslinging begin. It is funny, because when you talk to most people, they don't like the mudslinging aspect of politics. Yet, as we go along in this fine world, not only does the mudslinging continue, it increases exponentially as the years go on. The worst part is that now, the lies have increased as well. W based his last two campaigns on nothing but lies about his opponents; both in the primaries and in general elections. It is harder to know what is true and what is lies, and unless you do hours of research, it is nearly impossible to figure out what is going on. It has already started between candidates this year with Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, but I will give the press it's due. They were on top of the story and debunked it rather quickly.

That brings me to another point. The press. Other than reporting on Anna Nicole Smith or Britney Spears shaving her head, the press has become rather like a tabloid than actual news. My problem is that they could do so much more to clear up these controveries. They have resources and access to people that the public does not, and yet they really don't do the research to alert the public what is a lie and what is true. They are so wrapped up in Brad and Jennifer to Brad and Angelina, they really don't jump in and tell the public about the ads out there and debunk the ones that are false. My theory is that newspapers should go over the political ads, state what the ads say and then go over the facts and how they differ from what was said in the ads. They shouldn't bury them on the back pages, considering they report the juicy stuff on or near the front pages. They could be helping the public make educated decisions, but they help in the process of making stupid decision after st upid decision. They need to do a better job.

This is a quick This n That, because I don't want to pick sides. You have some front runners in Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guilliani and others that you will never hear from have the first series of primaries. I will probably tell you who I like and who I don't in the upcoming months and years, but my plea with everyone is just try and make educated choices. Before you run with a story you heard about a candidate, check it out as much as you can. Stay up on things and be aware. Let's try and elect someone who can do the job and do it well. Don't hire someone because you like them or they seem like a good ole boy. That hasn't worked out so well the past six years. Let's get someone in there who can do the job well, whether we like them or not. Just remember, everyone has flaws and nobody is perfect. If you are religious, there has only been one perfect person on this planet. Everyone has issues, skeletons, and moods. I want so get someone in there I think can handle the job and turn the mess around as much as possible. I hope I like them, but I'm not sitting down having dinner with them. I don't have to like them. They just have to be able to do the job. Remember that as you hear about each of these candidates.

Sincerely, The Novak Notebook

The subject? what do we do in Iraq now?

Now we can all sit here and say that we shouldn't be here, and it was a big mistake. I can even sit here and be one of the few who can tell you I knew it was a mistake the entire time. The President has changed his story on Iraq more times than I have fingers, and the American public is finally coming around to what people like me were trying to say all along; there was no reason to go over.

The problem with sitting around and doing that is that it really doesn't accomplish a whole lot. People are over there dying, now in quicker numbers than they were when the President declared victory. We're still over there, the nation is still unsettled, and there are still massive pockets of violence over there. So sitting here telling people 'I told you so isn't going to help one soldier, or get us out of there any quicker.'

The real question is what do we do now?

We can't go back and not fight the war, so wishing for the way things were isn't an option. We can't simply pull out, no matter what anyone promised during their campaign, because to do so would surely cause the country to collapse the very next day (if not later that day) and then you will have a civil war over there for many years, and it would be our fault.

So, the question still remains, what do we do?

I really don't have the answer. If I did, I would be working for some think tank somewhere, or doing probably one of many other jobs, other than the radiation therapy job I do now. I'm not that smart to be able to look at something that I have no connection with, have no intelligence on (other than what the cable channels tell me) and have no idea about the culture and be able to present you with a logical conclusion to what has become a logistical nightmare. I can't do that, but I am smart enough to know that I can't do that. At least I can admit that much. The problem is, many in this country have become 'experts' in what we need to do to take action over in Iraq. Many of these people have the same access to information I have, yet they somehow are able to make leaps and bounds no ordinary human should make. In fact, what is surprising is many of these same people who seem to now know what to do over there, are the same people who agreed we should have been fighting over there in the first place. Quite extraordinary, really, when people can flip around and nobody seems to pay any attention.

Now, you are probably asking two questions. What the hell does all of this have to do with former President Gerald Ford, and you still haven't answered the question about what to do over in the Middle East. True on both accounts, but I am getting where I want to go.

When Gerald Ford died, much was said about how he was the only man never elected either President or Vice-President. Others had gained the office of President, without winning an election for the Presidency, but they did win the election by being the Vice-Presidential candidate. He was never on a ticket for either. He was appointed by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew ran into some issues and was forced to resign as Vice-President, and later gained the Presidency when Richard Nixon had issues of his own.

After all of this, one singular message was hit enough times by many different people that is resonated with me long after I had heard it. Many said he was the right man at the right time for everything that was going wrong. Basically, the job sucked at the time and he was the right guy to clean it up. Historians will be able to tell whether that is actually true in time, but enough people said the same thing to stop and make me think about it.

Gerald Ford pardoned a man who the country wanted to string up. They wanted him on a stand spilling his guts in a trial, and Gerald Ford let him go. It cost him a re-election, but he never wavered, saying it was the right thing to do. At the time many people didn't agree with him, but almost to a tee, everyone says now Gerald Ford did the right thing by letting Richard Nixon go.

Whether Ford saw the future and the potential for disaster is a debate for another time. He seemed to indicate throughout the years the country needed to move past Watergate and move on with the real problems the country had at the time. He wasn't saying what the former President had done was right, but he said the rest of the country shouldn't be caught up in it. And since then look at what has happened whan this country has a huge trial. You've had massive celebrity trials that the entire country gets caught up in, and then you had a President get impeached and it brought his whole Presidency to a grinding hault until it was finished. Ford didn't want to see that happen, nor did he want to see the office he was running diminished in the eyes of the world by bringing the former President on trial like a common criminal. Whether it would have impacted what he was trying to accomplish or not is, once again, a debate for another time, yet it is hard to argue that having the former President on trial would have been a tad embarassing.

Gerald Ford essentially sacrificed his political career to do the right thing and pardon President Richard Nixon. The country moved along and was probably better for it, although the Ford Presidency is a mere footnote in most history texts.

Once again this country is at a crossroads. The majority of the public now want to pull out of Iraq. It doesn't matter that if they would've thought this way to begin with, we probably wouldn't be there, and thus wouldn't be having this discussion, but it is too late for that. We're there and we have to deal with it. Senator McCain has called for more troops to go into Iraq, and it was recently the topic of the President when he addressed the nation. Raise the troop levels in Iraq. The country did not want to hear this, and in fact many are upset. What is funny however, are the ones who are coming out that were against the war to begin with and saying now we need more troops in Iraq. I am one of those people. We completely confuse the ones who want to pull out. I actually had someone ask me how I can be for the war now, and I had to reply calmly that I was never for the war, but I got outvoted (twice) by the majority of the voters who liked the man who started the war. Now, there is nothing we can do, because we're stuck over there. The most reasonable solution to me sounds like we should end it as quick as possible. One of the ways that may be accomplished is putting more troops over there to curb the violence that is spreading around the streets. I'm not an expert but it sounds plausible that if you have more troops over there, you'll have a better chance of handling the problems that keep popping up a bit better.

Now before we go and send too many troops over there, one of the first things we should do is talk to the troops that have been over there, and talk to the military leaders in charge of the situation. Now, I'm not talking about the Donald Rumsfeld types who couldn't find there own behind if you pointed it out to them. I'm talking about troops and leaders who have been over there for significant portions of time. There's a wealth of knowledge there which can be tapped and applied to the problem before we spend more time trying to figure out what is wrong over there. Again, I am not an expert, but it seems logical to me that if you're having problems with an issue, discuss it with someone who has been through and see what kind of pitfalls they have been through, see what you can learn from them and go from there.

So overall, there may be many more difficult choices ahead for the leaders of this country. I am not confident at all in the leaders at the White House, since they seem like a bad take off of Dumb and dumber. For them to suddenly have a new plan and for it to work? Sorry, you've had your nearly four year run at this thing and you dropped the ball bigtime. You even insisted on numerous occasions you were winning the war, and it wasn't until you had your tail handed to you and were forced to admit you screwed up did you finally come out and admit you screwed up. How big of you. So, for me to trust you now after four years of lying? Yeah, like that's going to happen.

But there may be leaders out there like a John McCain who have to make a choice for what is good for this country. It may cost him a shot at the Presidency by saying we need to increase troop levels, but it may be something we need to look at. The problem isn't just going to go away, and we can't ignore it. We need tough leaders to make some choices they may not want to make, but they need to put the country ahead of their own political endeavors. It may cost them like it did Gerald Ford, but I know if it were me, I would like to be remembered as the right guy for the tough time. I could sleep at night knowing I did the right thing.
The Novak Notebook

One thing I left out, noticebly was Democrats and Republicans. They have never gotten along and they will never get along as long as we all walk the Earth. They don't want to get along, and they feel that if they do get along, it will be a sign of weakness, therefore they will lose the upcoming election. They can't afford the upset the people in their own party, so they decide to go with the flow rather than think for themselves.

This latest election is being seen as historical for several different reasons. One is the way the Democrats took control and completely squashed the Republicans, but it was also a loud voice from the voting public that things have to change in Washington.

The problem with this voice is that it most likely will fall on deaf ears. Sure the Republicans and Democrats will talk a good game and they will say they are going to work together, and Bush has already said some things about reaching across the aisle, but does anyone honestly believe it. The Republicans view this as a huge loss, and the last thing they are going to want to do is work with the Democrats. They are going to see them as a huge threat, with the Presidential race around the corner. They are not going to want to work with them, make the Democrats look good, and give them momentum going in to '08. They are going to work with them a little bit, but I guarantee you that George Bush's veto record will go from one to alot more than one.

In the meantime, the Democrats have no reason to work with the Republicans. They were vindicated by the election, and they see it as a mandate given to them by the public. If they start working with the Republicans, it will also make them look weak, and it will look as if they don't have any ideas of their own. The only reason they have to work together is if the Republicans put forth an issue they support anyway.

It looks like it could be a stalemate, however I don't think there is going to be as much gridlock as could happen. The reason is neither side wants to look bad going into the Presidential election either. They don't want to look like they're blocking policy or creating more problems in the country. They almost have to work together so neither party looks foolish or uncompromising. They aren't going to work together the way everyone wants, but they will work together. What most likely is going to happen is that you are going to see a lot of backroom politics. They are going to cut a lot of deals over the next couple of years. The Democrats are going to get quite a number of things they want, and the Republicans will get some of what they want, and neither will look good or bad, and they won't lose face to their constituants either. Things will get done, but not to the extent that things need to be done.

The other problem with this election is similar to the last Presidential election we had. People voted for George Bush in the last election, many hoping he would fix the problems that were happening in Iraq. That was foolish and silly, but that was how people voted. I actually saw quotes in the paper, saying they hoped Bush could fix what was wrong in Iraq. Since he was the one that caused nearly all the problems in Iraq to begin with, he saw the election as a mandate to continue to do what he was doing. He did. We didn't like it, but nobody could do anything until it was too late.

Now you have an election where it was clear that quite a number of people were not happy with what was going on and the direction the country was taking (gee where were these people when I was talking about Iraq before the war started). They voted overwhelmingly for the party opposite of the President, and now we're going to have a split government. There will be a little more of a check and balance, so it should be more entertaining to say the least.

So, the people voted for the Democrats hoping they would fix the things the last election did not fix. One problem. It's too late. You can't pull out Iraq. Anyone with any brains realizes that. I am absolutely against the war, but there is no way to pull out without causing all kinds of issues in the middle east. It's like they have enough problems, I don't think we need to add anymore. You need a reasonable plan to get out, but you need a number of people working on the problem. You can't just expect the Democrats to come up with all the answers right away. It isn't going to work, and the people who are looking at it that way, most likely are the ones who voted for Bush in the last election.

We need to become smarter as a public. We need to see things, read about things and make sure we vote accordingly. Voting these people back in time after time is not the answer, and it allows these people to continue to abuse those powers that we give them, and they do it unchecked.

There are several other points I want to hit you with before I leave. They are you for you to mull over and see what you think.

Anyone who actually still thinks Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction are fooling themselves and not looking at the evidence. I feel sorry for these people and it's a shame they are that fooled. Here's two points to consider about those supposed weapons of mass destruction. First off not to mention they never found anything, but most people don't remember that three quarters of his country was a no-fly zone, so we controlled the air. Also we had satellites everywhere around there, so there was no way things were getting in and out without us noticing it. The other thing is where was Israel. The last time when Iraq was serious about weapons of mass destruction, Israel went over and bombed them, bombed all of their factories where bombs could be made. They didn't apologize and the rest of the world condemned them for what they did. They didn't care, and they didn't make any excuses. When we were talking about all of these weapons, Israel didn't say a word. They didn't back us, they didn't come out and confirm anything, and they were really quiet. Makes you wonder doesn't it. Also, here's another question, why does a cop keep asking you the same questions over and over? To see if you change your answers. How many different answers have we given as to why we're over in Iraq.

There is a good book about the start of the Iraq war and how it happened. It is co-authored by David Corn, who wrote the lies of George Bush. The book is titled Hubris, and I recommend it to everyone. A great read, and it shows you how politics and behind the scenes operate in Washington.

Well, in the upcoming months, we'll see if the Republicans and Democrats work together. The last time they played nice was when Ross Perot was running for President, and they didn't want to make each other look bad. Everytime they ripped each other, Perot's numbers went up. People are tired of politicians ripping each other. Both sides played nice, showing that a strong third party might actually get some things accomplished in this country. Most of the country is moderate, yet you hear from the extremes. If there were a party that tried to incorporate the middle, they would win quite a number of elections. The problem is we need to get one started. We almost had the Reform party, but that fell by the wayside.

We don't have a third party right now, but we'll see if we can get some things done anyway. Lots of major changes happened, and we'll see if it sent a true message to the old hat in Washington, or if they're just going to bide their time. Everyone is already gearing up for the election in '08, so who knows how much will actually get accomplished. I'm hoping some things will progress forward, but until I see it, I'm not going to believe any of it.

Sincerely,
The Novak Notebook

Anyway, the column I wanted to write was about things I've learned on my travails. You see, I am in somewhat of a unique position in that I am not only being a tourist, which is what most people do when they travel, but I am also living and working in the area that I am staying. I'm not special, by any means, but I do get a different perspective of sorts, because I can play both the sight seer and the local wherever I'm staying. So I wanted to share some of my thoughts and observations about things I've learned and seen while traveling around. I am by no means an expert, because there are many people out there who have been on the move a lot longer than I have, but I figured that since I have been doing this for three years straight now, I could at least speak to it on some level. I hope you enjoy them.

Things I have learned while traveling......

If you don't think you have an accent, you will eventually run into someone who will tell you differently.

No one appreciates their own back yard more than someone who is there for the first time. This actually happened to me, because while I was snapping pictures everywhere I was going, I realized one day that I didn't have any pictures of my home town. Not one. So, I went out one day and did a tour of my own home town. It was fun and a little different. Also, I appreciate my home town more and more, because sometimes I'm away for months at a time, and when I come back another shop is closed or another building torn down. There are so many changes that happen right under our noses that we either take for granted or don't pay any attention to, that it's not until we're away for awhile and we appreciated how much time has actually gone by to allow these changes to happen.

Nobody takes full advantage of where they live. This is sort of a take off of the last one, but it's true as well. I was up in Poughkeepsie New York, and every weekend I was finding something new and different to do, for nearly six months. I wasn't going home on the weekends, because it was too far to drive every weekend, so I would just stay there and find something to do. Well, eventually after bringing so many pictures to work, one of the doctors remarked that I was getting more out of the living there than any of them were. I think this happens, because once you live somewhere for any length of time, you start taking things for granted. You either fall into your daily routines or you're too busy to stop and smell the roses, but for whatever reasons, the stuff that is around you is merely that. Stuff. It's either in your way while you're trying to get somewhere else, or I nice diversion for the kids while you are doing something else. But quite a number of people do not take advantage of the things that surround them and just go about their daily grind.

Everyone needs to get out to California, if only one time in your life. I think everyone needs to go to the California coast and see drive the Pacific coast Highway. It is remarkable, and there is so much to see there. There is nothing else like it on the east coast, except for maybe up near Maine. But it is something people will cherish and never forget.

People from other parts of the country aren't aliens. Although we tend to fall for this one. We are fed such strange and bizarre stories about other parts of the country that we can't fathom how we would ever communicate with anyone outside our little circle. Truth is, not everyone in Philadelphia is a homicidal maniac. Not everyone from New York is ready to run you over just to look at you. Not everyone from California is a stoner. Most of the things we hear on the news and from other sources are far from the truth. While it is true that there are areas you better never step foot in while going around Philly, the whole city is not out of control. There are not murders on every street corner in New York city. These things just aren't happening. Places get reputations, but just think of some of the things people have called you in the past, and how many of them were actually true. Don't be afraid of someplace simply because you heard something about it. If a friend or someone close to you warns you about certain areas, by all means keep alert, but don't avoid whole towns simply because of the reputation it has.

People should travel more and see what's out there. Even though nowadays people seem to be working more and more, everyone deserves a break. And yes, I just mentioned above how people need to look in their own backyard for fun and excitement. That is true too. But there is a whole world out there waiting to be explored, and most people don't even know it yet. I recently talked with someone who wanted a good weeks worth of stuff to do. He likes taking trips and sometimes just heads down a road just to see what's down the road. I love the attitude. So, he lives in Philadelphia and I told him he could take three roads, and see quite a bit of stuff. That's it, three main roads. You can take I-76(the PA turnpike) all the way into Ohio (it becomes I-80 I think.) then you connect up to I-77 in Ohio, go north and connect up with I-90. Take that back east for a little while, and then you can make your way home from there. Now, what all can you see from those roads? Along I-76 you have; Daniel Boone homestead, Lancaster(which has the Amish), Gettysburg isn't too far away, James Buchanan's home (the only President from PA) United 93 memorial isn't far off the path, you have two Frank Lloyd Wright homes (Falling Water being his most famous), and Pittsburgh. There are some other things along the way if you're more into local history, such as the Johnstown flood and things like that, you could take even longer. Then along I-77, you will run into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and then up in Cleveland, you can visit the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, although they don't allow pictures in there for whatever reason. After you're done in Cleveland, you can hop on 90 and see Lake Erie, and eventually land yourself near Buffalo and a little place called Niagra Falls. Lots of cool stuff and lots of stuff to see. The shame is a lot of people don't know where all of that stuff is and they don't try and find out.

People who live in the city can appreciate the country life, whereas the country people seem to be thankful not to be living in the city. I don't know if this is true for everyone, but from what I've seen more people from the country seem to be thankful they aren't living in the city than city people thankful they're not living in the country. In fact quite a number of city people keep talking about getting a few acres and moving out of the city, whereas a few of the country people have lived in the city and are thankful they don't live there anymore.

With that being said though...there is far more to do in the city than in the country. I'm a city guy, so that's my perspective, but when I get really bored, it was usually in the country. I didn't want to get in my car and drive fifty miles to go and do something, so that definitely needs to be thought out before hand.

There are different names for the same things. Most people know this one, like it's called soda on the east coast, and pop once you start moving west. But it can even refer to the city as well. People from New York call New York City "the City". Pittsburgh is called Downtown. Philadelphia has old Philly and Center City. California in Monterey is called the Central Coast. Cleveland was by the Lake or downtown, Baltimore has the Inner Harbor reference and so on. Hoagies and subs can be the same thing. Running shoes, sneakers and tennis shoes all can mean the same thing. It's fun to hear the differences sometimes, but you have to keep on your toes with that one.

Everyone loves their sports teams, but New Yorkers are the most confused. Pittsburgh it's the Steelers. Philly it's the Eagles. Cleveland its the Browns and Indians. Boston it's the Sox. Columbus it's Ohio State. New York it's the Jets or Giants. Mets or Yankees. They have a whole bunch of dividing lines up there. They have a lot of teams and a lot of fans, and most can't be on both sides. It's either one or the other and that's it.

Most people do not have a problem with outsiders. They really don't. They like having people come in that they can talk about their city and culture with. The key is that the outsiders at least have to show repsect to the town and culture. I have never been anywhere where I didn't feel welcomed and appreciated. I go in anxious to explore the area, asking where some cool places are to check out and what there is to do around there. They take me under their wings and give me some clues and tips. They like the fact that I'm showing interest in their area and I appreciate the fact they are not trying to make my life difficult. People will respond better if you show an interest in their area though, rather than just going in thinking where you came from is better than where you are.

Everyone likes hearing stories from other parts of the country. It's almost like they get a chance to read another book by hearing some from another part of the world tell a story.

When it's work related, everyone wants to know if it is as bad everywhere else as it is there. If you tell them that they don't have it so bad, it's almost like kicking a puppy. You see such a dejected look on their face you almost feel sorry for them. every job has it's good points and bad points. With all of the places I have been, there are only a few jobs I have seen that were close to perfect and even they were not perfect. There is no such thing, but with all of what I've seen, I now have a better idea of what I'm going to be looking for when I settle back down eventually.

The more you travel, the more you get to reinvent yourself. Keep what you like, discard what you don't, and try different things, just to keep it interesting. If it doesn't work, you are going to move on eventually anyway, so don't worry about it.

People keep wondering why celebrities are in the news all the time, yet people everywhere love gossip. That is the second biggest topic of discussion once you get past family. They love to tell, they love to hear.

The computer has brought the entire world closer. Sometimes that isn't a good thing, but for the most part, I think it has been a great thing. you get to keep in touch, see what someone else is seeing on the other side of the world, and it has created a whole new level of discussion in the American dialogue.

You are never to old to learn. You are also never too old to be in awe, cry, or feel like a kid. A good laugh can get you through a miserable day.

Kids are pretty resilient. Sometimes they handle things better than adults simply because it is something they have to do. Yet there is nothing worse on this earth than seeing a kid who is really sick and really struggling with it.

sometimes old people say some of the darnedest things. And they say the funniest sometimes too.

apparently, people tend to think there is something wrong with you if you're 35 year old man who isn't married. Yet once you start traveling, they think you are doing a wonderful thing and it is such a great idea to travel since you aren't married. There suddenly isn't as much wrong with you anymore, however they still feel the need to fix you up with someone they know who is just perfect for you.

When you get set-up on a date you really are being set up.

You can impact more peoples' lives by being on the move than by standing still.

I could never work in a children's unit, because I would go broke getting them whatever they want. It is never fair to see a child with cancer.

It is a shame that the one thing in this world that truly does not discriminate, does not see sex, religion, color, age is cancer. It truly does not care who or what you are.

Nobody seemed to vote for Bush in the last election. I'm wondering how he won if nobody voted for him.

You can talk politics, religion and sex with people. You just can't be a complete idiot about them when you do. People love a good discussion or debate, but that's what it has to be. It can't be you clubbing them over the head with your opinion, telling them that their opinion is wrong. People don't mind talking about taboo topics, as long as you're willing to respect their position. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to respect it.

Patients would rather come in and see someone smiling and interacting with them, then some in and be ordered around by some robot.

everyone loves music. everyone loves movies, but not everyone loves books and television.

there is no such thing as a sure thing, yet everyone is sure their group is going to win the Powerball.

doctors are people too. You have your good ones, your bad ones and ones that are complete idiots

those who say they aren't very creative are usually hiding something

everyone likes a good conspiracy theory

middle management is a no win situation. when the people below you are happy, the people above you are not. when the people above you are happy, the people below you are ready to revolt.

everyone loves sports but they're tired of the athletes who play them.

nothing is as peaceful as a sunset off of a big body of water.

Edgar Allen Poe did not have a good life. For as brilliant as his work was, his life was as equally a disaster in every way possible.

Nobody knows what to do when the terrorist alert rises in color.

If you think things can't be worse, work with cancer or alzheimers patients, and you will change your tune.

there are a lot more alcoholics out there than we are lead to believe. despite that, i have never met anyone who was pulled over for a DUI

living a sheltered life only leads to a more rude awakening later on in life.

The bottom line is people should get out more and see what this great country of ours has to offer. Chances are there are things in your own backyard that you haven't taken advantage of. Probably some things you didn't even know were there. There is a whole world out there just waiting to be seen, and it would be a shame to miss out and only hear about it from other people.
The Novak Notebook

It has now been about a year since Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, and pretty well decimated New Orleans. There is no question that it was very catastrophic and devastating to the thousands in the vicinity and the millions watching around the world. Unfortunately, while there is pull and promise to rebuild, there is still a lot of hurt and ruin left over that may never get that sense of optimism.

We all know what happened. Everyone who is reading this column saw something on the news that stood out, or watched the drama and destruction unfold. You and I saw the once-gorgeous houses now looking like piles of giant matchsticks, and the neighborhoods resembling a living color version of the black-and-white World War II footage of bombed-out Germany. So I'm not going to go on that. What I am going to do, is tell you things here and there you may or may not have been aware of.

New Orleans was pretty much the proverbial "sitting duck", waiting to get hit. While it had not been racked by a major storm of that magnitude since Hurricane Camille in 1969 (which was a much stronger storm than Katrina), it was ill-prepared for such a storm.

My first criticism comes toward the local government. The warnings came in at least 2 days in advance, yet no evacuations were enforced until some 19 hours before Katrina's landfall. Some were voluntary, and some were mandatory. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered his city's evacuation as mandatory. Why so soon, rather than immediate? I realize that storms can be unpredictable, and can turn in an instant. But in this instance, when it is surely gathering strength and charging for a near-head-on collision, why delay? And if a hurricane is definitely going to hit, why voluntary evacuations and not mandatory? The only sure way to be safe from a hurricane is to EVACUATE....or, in my own case, live nowhere near a hurricane-prone area.

Now, I agree on having the mandatory evacuation. Most of the people who could leave, did, jamming the interstates and roads out of the city. For those who couldn't leave, they got on public transportation and headed for one of several "refuges of last resort", including the Louisiana Superdome in downtown New Orleans. Then there were those who either couldn't leave their homes because they had no resources. If you go back and watch some of the reports just hours before the hurricane hit, you could see in the background, several empty school buses parked in a lot. Why weren't there people driving those buses to retrieve those who couldn't leave, and drive them to one of the "refuges"? A lot more lives might have been spared. Or those who were too stubborn, saying, "I made it through the last, I'll make it through this one, I'm not worried..." Come on, what are you waiting for? Here in Iowa, if a tornado is coming right at you, are you going to stand in front of it and dare it to get you? No way! You're going to get to the nearest shelter you can get to! If the evacuation is mandatory, I don't care who you are, you get out of there! You cannot control Mother Nature.

And why was the government not in this as much? The local area was ill-prepared for such an occurance, as it had been about 40 years since Camille, as compared to Florida, which gets about 3 or 4 hurricanes a year. FEMA is still a by-product of Homeland Security, rather than its own independent self, and the response ended up being an absolute joke. We've seen how it was, and how things ended up. The storm's devastation also caused a Congressional investigation, which found that FEMA and the Red Cross "did not have a logistics capacity sophisticated enough to fully support the massive number of Gulf coast victims." Additionally, it placed responsibility for the disaster on all three levels of government (local, state, and federal).

We know about the loss of lives, and we know about the people stranded on their rooftops and inside the Superdome, running low and/or out of food, water, and other rations. And we know about the high crime: the carjackings, murder, robbery, and looting going on the city. What I didn't care for was the way the media portrayed the looting: if a minority was running off with stolen goods, it was referred to as "looting", yet if a white person was doing the same, it was "doing what they have to do to survive". Come on, looting is looting, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

Today, some have come back, and others have not. What was once a city of over 400,000 people, now resides about less than 200,000. Jobs that once paid $5 per hour are now offering positions for $10 per hour just to entice more people to return. Some neighborhoods have become virtual ghost towns, such as the Lower Ninth Ward, or St. Bernard Parish.

There was a large outpouring of support, relief, and aid from several countries around the world. The U.S. itself pledged $61.3 billion dollars. With as deep in debt and with all the costs of major defense spending and budget allotment, and other costs too numerous to mention, how is the U.S. going to afford that? Granted, the foreign, domestic, corporate, and private aid helped. Now, the government has gone ahead and started the process of rebuilding New Orleans, and I believe it to be a mistake on many grounds. Let's take a look:

First of all, most of the residential city of New Orleans is below sea level. The city more or less is shaped like a giant soup bowl. So when the floodwaters came, it filled up quickly. Aside from that, New Orleans was never intended to be a city, let alone for any kind of development. It was designed to be the shipping port between the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi River. The area was originally swampland, and the ground is almost always saturated; in cemeteries, the dead must be interred above ground. So if anything is going to be rebuilt, it should be the port, as that is the primary purpose. Look at Galveston, Texas. When hurricanes of the past have hit Galveston, the rebuilding was never entirely focused on rebuilding the city; it was more to the port, as that was the main necessity of the city. I think New Orleans should be no different. From there, with the "soup bowl" topography of the land, and with the erosion of the Mississippi River Delta, I learned back as early as 1990 that New Orleans probably would be submerged completely within a century or just over, and the immense flooding from the hurricane showed just a sampling of what's to come. By rebuilding the city, all you'd be getting is a current version of an eventual City of Atlantis.

Second, the city of New Orleans' economy primarily comes from tourism. There are 3 major cities in the U.S. that depend on tourism as their major source for their economy: Las Vegas, Orlando, and New Orleans. Without them, the city cannot survive. New Orleans lost it with the hurricane. Now people will still want to come for Mardi Gras or the French Quarter, which was not badly damaged, being one of the few areas of the city that stayed above water, and today you can take guided tours of ravaged areas that were left as they were. The tourists will come back, but not in the droves that they did for years upon years.

Next, the city was primarily composed of minorities making the majority of the population. The city is composed about 50/50 between residents being home owners and home renters. When the segment on "60 Minutes" aired, it sounded as if the whites were glad the minorities were not returning, and they could re-design the city to their opinions, one of which was razing a lower-income housing project, and in its place, build high-income condominiums. The piece made it sound like New Orleans is on track to become another high-rolling city, such as Las Vegas or Atlantic City. So what does that do? It shuts out the diversity of culture and life that New Orleans had prided itself on for as long as generations can recall. In a lot of ways, this hurricane allowed modern-day American racism and bigotry to be exposed to a world-wide audience.

It took approximately 30 days for the floods to drain. There are still toxins in the air, water, and area, and the water is still not 100% safe for any kind of use. The residual waters pumped into Lake Ponchatrain contained a mix of raw sewage, bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides, toxic chemicals, and about 6.5 million gallons of oil.

The city, besides being primarily minority, was also one of the poorest cities, financially, in the U.S. Before the hurricane, over 1/4 of its residents were on some kind of welfare or below the financial "poverty level". The education system in the city has approximately 47% of its schools rated as "academically unacceptable" and another 26% rated under "adademic warning". On top of that, one-fourth of adults in the city had no high-school diploma.

The insurance companies denied several thousand claims from homeowners and renters because flood and/or hurricane insurance was not purchased by that many. Even if you look at FEMA's total aid payout, it comes to about $72,000 per person. Is that really enough to rebuild? Not in most cases. So I think it's a better idea to relocate and start over. But for many, relocating is not an option, and the lower class seem to have no place in the "future" of New Orleans, as I explained above.

I know I'm not alone in my beliefs above. Even U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert questioned the necessity of rebuilding New Orleans, only to be retorted by his fellow Congresspersons. Now, I'm certainly not a Republican who's feeding an appetite for destruction. Nor am I a Democrat, asking for compassion to the underprivileged. All I'm asking is, does the rebuilding even make sense, if you look at it from a logical point of view?

Use your common sense. It's all to the voice of the people.

"When the levee breaks, Mama you got to move."
---Led Zeppelin, "When the Levee Breaks".
Adam

SOURCES: Paul Attner, The Sporting News, "Standing Up, Standing
Tall, Standing Out." July 7, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina Jack Shafer,
Slate Magazine, "Don't Refloat: The case against rebuilding the sunken city of New Orleans."
September 7, 2005
The Weather Channel, "Storm Stories: A Hurricane
Katrina Anniversary Special." August 20, 2006.

Since we've had a few columns dealing with politics, and since it doesn't look like we'll have any shortage of topics to discuss down the road in regards to that forum, I decided to tackle another fun subject for this go-around. We've had something come up recently in the news that will also make the topic, topical so to speak, but it is worth discussing anytime.

Recently, Mel Gibson got stopped for a DUI and said some things that I'm not going to repeat here. They were inflammatory and they were uncalled for. They should have never been said, and they upset the Jewish community. More importantly, they got on the evening news about the same time the attacks over in Lebanon and Israel started, and for some reason we were more concerned about those comments then we were with what was actually going on in the Middle East. Makes one wonder where priorities come into play.

Now as I stated, what Mel Gibson said was terrible and they were things that should have never been said. But I am going to look at those comments and look at the situation from several different standpoints. Here is the criteria for reading the rest of this column; if you saw the movie JFK and thought that Oliver Stone was seriously trying to blame everyone for the JFK assassination rather than running through possible scenarios of how things would've gone down if certain people were involved, well you need to stop reading and pick up the comics in the local newspapers, because you just won't get it.

Now, suppose Mel Gibson meant what he said. My first thought is who cares? I don't know Mel Gibson, and what he thinks and does with his life in no way, shape or form affects my daily life whatsoever. He can hate everyone in the whole entire world, my life moves right along. Does my life change when Steven Spielberg makes Schindler's List? No. So, why should my life change if Mel Gibson hates Jews? My point being you have to live your own life, not live through your celebrity icons. That is just silly.

I would've been more concerned had the comments come from George Bush, or some other person in the government. These are people with real power and make decisions about the Middle East, Israel and the Jews every day they are in power. It would be disturbing to think of one of them being anti-semetic and yet have all of that control and power. Yet, what do you think the chances are that there are not only people in the government who hate Jews, but probably also hate blacks, latinos, and all minorities. I'm betting the chances of that are pretty good.

Mel Gibson is a Hollywood star. Nothing more, nothing less. If he is seen as more than that, it is because we made him more than that. He has no control over any policies, he doesn't have a say in Middle East affairs, and before the Passion of the Christ came out he was known for playing a crazy guy in the Lethal Weapon movies and for playing Mad Max. How can anyone give any credence to what he says in a drunken stupor. I mean, did the woman police officer that he alledgedly call "sugar tits" really have sugar tits? We've had priests who were child molesters, politicians who were adulterors, so is it really so far out of the realm of possibility to think there might be people in Hollywood who are bigots, racist, or anti-semetic? Does your life change because of it?

Another possibility is that while out drinking Mel Gibson either got into a conversation or saw some news about what was going on in the Middle East and he was just frustrated with it like everyone else is. Nobody likes war. We have stuff going on over in Iraq, Iran is making noise, and all of the sudden Israel and Lebanon decide to tangle. It's sad when you watch the news. Another thing is this, when was the last time Israel wasn't fighting with someone? So they have been fighting and fighting for some time. The whole are has been a hot spot for thousands of years, and there is constant fighting going on over there. So, when he says they start all the wars, while they obviously don't start the big wars (Korea, Vietnam, WW I, WW II, and such) they are constantly fighting. If you're constantly fighting, you sort of develop a reputation. Apparently, Mel Gibson has friends who are Jewish and are backing him up on this, so he seems to be implying the fighting that's going on over there right now. I'm not saying it makes it any better, but it might explain it a little more.

My next question comes out of left field. Why is it that white America has to have the thickest skin? Everyone else is so sensitive to race to the point where if something is breathed about them they can cry and scream racism, yet we have to take all kinds of abuse? For instance, why is it wrong when a white says 'those blacks are always looting like that during times like this' during something like Katrina yet a black person can come out and say something about whites holding them down, whites enslaving them, whites being racist, and nobody can say anything to them? They are both generalities and they are both wrong. They are also both racist. Yes, racism can be white against black, but it can also be black against white, white against latino, black against Jamaican, latino against asian, korean against Japanese. It doesn't matter. It's all racism. If you make remarks against another race, that is the definition of racist remarks. However, it seems to me that it is open season on whites, while everyone else can cry racism.

Now the Jewish community has come out and basically said 'see this is the kind of thing we're fighting against all the time.' Really? Is Jon Stewart locking horns with Mel Gibson in a cage match to the death? I seriously doubt it. Let's face a little reality here. People have their opinions of other people and races, and what Mel Gibson blurts out or what I write in a column is going to do very little to change anyone's mind. And if Mel Gibson or I are that influential, then that person probably doesn't have too much working upstairs to begin with. People are going to be racist and prejudice against other groups. That is a fact of life that nobody can deny. Jews and Muslims don't get along, but let me ask you something; is it completely a one way street? Is it always the Muslims picking on the poor little Jews? I seriously doubt that. I'm sure both groups have had a good share of blame in the conflicts over the years.

I'm not saying that the Jews haven't been persecuted. The Holocaust was one of the worst things that has ever happened in mankind. But if the Jewish community wouldn't have been so influential in the rest of the world, how much would we really know about it? You don't believe me? Okay, why don't we see Steven Spielberg making movies about the six million people Joseph Stalin murdered while he was a reign of terror in the Soviet Union, AT THE SAME TIME that Hitler was killing Jews in Germany? When was the last time anyone made a movie about Idi Amine and the genocide he committed in Africa, or really gotten an inside look at what really happened in Yugoslavia? Yet, year after year documentaries and movies are made about the Holocaust. Yes, it was terrible, and yes it deserves to be looked at and remembered, but they aren't the only people in the world who have been persecuted.

It is in much the same way when the black community comes out and says they wanted to be treated the same, yet they want to be called African Americans, just like Jewish-Americans or the Latin-American community. Um, you just seperated yourself from everyone. How can you expect anyone to treat you the same if you go out of your way to be different? Then they talk about Africa and slavery and how wrong it was what the white man did. Yes, it was terrible and wrong. It was also a hundred and forty years ago that slavery ended. Yes, civil rights were still an issue in the 60s, but that is nearly forty years ago, which is twenty years closer than the Holocaust, or the Japanese encampments on the west coast, which nobody seems to really talk about either. All of these things are horrific, but they are all also in the past. We need to move forward and stop picking open old wounds. We need to remember the past, but not live there. I agree with those that say that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, but they don't say to live the history over and over. As for history what the black community fail to say is that most slaves were sold by other blacks in Africa to white people. After a war or battle, the winner would gather up the losers, sell them to the whites as slaves and thus get rid of any possible chance of further conflict. That always seems to miss the history lessons. It is much the same where Jews with better connections were able to get out of Germany easier than the poor Jews, or that the whites governing this country aren't as worried about genocide and violence in parts of the world such as Africa and the former Yugoslavia because there is no economic benefit to the US there. Sometimes facts are facts. Blacks say they have struggled all these years with their inner city communities because of racism, yet some communities that have come in after them have done well for themselves. Not all, but some. I find it comical that the first time somebody suggests that it might be the black community itself that needs to fix it, they are immediately labeled racist, or working for whitey (see Bill Cosby). Are they seriously suggesting they don't have any faults or issues in their community? They would be the first perfect community if that is the case, but I really doubt that. I think they have issues just like any other race of people. Their issues might be different but they are still there. Is there true racism out there and are certain people, and maybe at times certain communities being held down? Probably. I certainly wouldn't doubt it, but it is the case of crying wolf too often, because not everything is about race. Everytime you use it, and it clearly doesn't involve race, people will eventually stop listening. I went through a community the other day (don't know what their primary make-up is, so I won't even speculate), but the place looked like a bomb went off. Graffitti and garbage everywhere, people not doing anything, and the place looked like a war zone. That is just sad. My question is, why should anyone respect you and give you anything when you don't even respect yourself or the place you live. There is no crime in being poor, but you don't have to look like you just don't care. What's the point in that?

The Jewish community is no different. They have issues, and they are not perfect either. Neither are Catholics, Scientologists, Muslims, or any other religion out there. They have their beliefs, which is fine, but that doesn't mean they are right about everything. There is not one perfect person on this planet, and there is not one perfect religion. The problem in this world is that they all think they are perfect and right, and they feel the need to impress that on to others who don't see it that way. Yes the Jews went through some horrible things during WW II, but Mel Gibson didn't cause them, and what he thinks really doesn't matter to the world in large anyway.

Now, what is the real impact of what Mel Gibson says. Personally, I'm more concerned with the obvious rise in Neo-Nazism in Germany, but since everyone else seems concerned with Mel, we'll go with that. To me and you, the impact isn't much. Ahh, but you have the people who say, it's those types of comments that we need to get rid of, that type of thinking, and if nothing is done to him then it will be like everyone is condoning it. Really? I think Mel Gibson is going to have to make peace with it on his own, in Hollywood with whoever feels slighted by those comments. He has to deal with it, and it has to be in his circle. He came out and supposedly apologized, although whether it was sincere or not is a matter for debate. But really, is spanking Mel really going to change peoples' thoughts? Aren't the people who already think like that going to point and say see, the Jews cry again and get their way? You really expect to change peoples' attitudes by publicly flogging a Mel Gibson. Think about it? What would the Jewish community really get out of it? Revenge. Well, if that isn't the whole reason to do something about it, I don't know what is.

The other thing that really struck me about this whole case is that people were actually more concerned about the fact that Mel Gibson said some bad things, and ignore the fact that he was drunk driving. To me, I'd be a tad bit more concerned about the fact that he could've killed someone on the road with his car (be it Jew, black, white, hispanic) rather than something he spat out after he was pulled over, but nooooo, this country we're far more concerned that he said something bad rather than the fact he could've killed someone walking across the street. Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense to me. Priorities, gotta love 'em.

Now what does this all mean from my perspective. I could care less what Mel Gibson says. I don't know the man, and I never did know him. Does it make me think less of him? I don't know. I think I would have to go back and see how he's been throughout his life and see what he does from here on out. Since I don't know what he was life before, other than what people tell me, I can't judge the man. Judge not lest ye be judged. Judging one man is no better than judging an entire race. It is wrong. You have good and bad everywhere. You have good blacks, whites, Jews, Latinos, Muslims, and Asians, just like you have bad ones. You have smart ones, and you have stupid ones. People are people. I remember taking a sensitivity course one time, and the question was what does a black person prefer to be called and the choices were a) black b) African American c and d were other choices, one a not so nice term. So, the one girl in the front (who was black) said she didn't like any of them. The lady asked her why, and she said, she wasn't from Africa, and she wasn't black, she figured one choice was just odd, and obviously the last one was a racially charged word. The lady was a little puzzled and asked her what she was and she said she was Sally, and that's what she should be called. See, we judge way too much in this world, about topics and people we know very little about. Why can't we just call each other by our names. Or in my case, just say that short, bald, fat, glasses wearing white guy who looks like a bowling pin. If we give power to the words, we allow the words to define who we are. If we give power to someone like Mel Gibson, then he defines our life. If we just shrug our shoulders at comments by someone none of us know and move on with our lives, I think our lives will be better for it. We have to be careful in this world about whose side to jump to (remember guys like Saddam and Osama were allies at one point, mostly because we liked what they were saying at the time) and we already seem to be in over our heads from time to time. If someone is acting out to inhibit our freedoms because of our race or religion, that is one thing, but should we jump at every word said? We would be jumping quite a bit, and I think there are more important things in this world than what some drunkard said after getting pulled over.

The Novak Notebook.

"You, who murdered 100,000 Iraqis to save a nickel on a gallon of gas, are going to lecture me about the rules of war? Well, DON'T!"
---from the movie "Air Force One"---

In the course of our history, we've all had to rely on oil and gasoline for fuel power on whatever we use to get around. From the time when gasoline was only pennies per gallon as automobiles dawned on the horizon, to the current day where prices loom around $3 a gallon, oil and gas are a necessary evil in our time.

When I got my driver's license in the fall of 1994, I happily forked over 89 cents per gallon. Sadly, the last time I (or any of us will ever see this figure) paid less than a dollar per gallon was the early months of 1998. The first time I really noticed prices upping was after September 11, 2001, when some retailers felt that the terrorist attacks would hamper our oil, and spiked the prices from our then-normal price of around $1.39 up towards $2. When the "gouging" was called on, the prices resumed to normal. When the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan went on, the prices (understandably) continued to rise. And when Hurricane Katrina hammered the southern coast of the U.S, the prices jacked to $3.29 here in Iowa, yet in states such as Georgia and the Carolinas, some fuel was as much as $6. When is enough, enough?

There is no question that oil is a limited resource. I recall reading in science class in junior high that the world's oil supply would probably run out sometime in the middle of the 21st century, and that coal would be next, some 200 years from now. So while conservation and recycling oil has helped, it's not nearly enough for an oil and energy-hungry world.

Now, I'm not here to make a call for conservation. I'm here to ask about alternatives. Other ideas. Whatever we can to find a solution to our problem.

I know that prices more or less go by supply and demand. It just seems that anytime there is any kind of disruption or dispute elsewhere in the world where we have oil exported from, the gas prices jump. For instance, if there is fighting in Nigeria that may disrupt production, we'll see the prices rise 10 cents. Or when North Korea began test-firing their missiles...once again, rising prices. Yet when there's worry about demand for gas because it's not a peak-traveling weekend, the prices drop.

With the U.S, the biggest problem, it seems, is our dependency on foreign oil. Our energy crisis in the 1970's illustrates that point. Now while we're one of the leading oil producers in the world, we're not the top, which is hailed by Saudi Arabia. In turn, the Saudis are willing to invest in countries where oil is a chief product, and that includes the U.S. But we can't just up and cut everyone out from oil, because that would hurt our market. For instance, in Michael Moore's documentary "Farenheight 9/11", it is noted that the Saudis have so much money invested in America that they more or less own about 7% of the U.S, primarily in oil (BP, Conoco) and financial markets (MBNA, Citibank, and so on). Now, 7% may not seem like much, but if you figure all the other countries that have investments with America, 7% is a large amount. If that 7% were pulled tomorrow, you'd easily see the Dow Jones slam down over 1500 points (minimum). Our economy couldn't handle such a drop.
--------------------------
I recently read about the oil reserves under Gull Island in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Reportedly, there is more pure grade oil there than in all of Saudi Arabia. One estimate said that the oil would be enough to last America for another 200 years. Eight wells have been drilled and are ready to go, but have not been given the green light to go. Now while the production and purification would obviously take time, why not have the wheels of motion start?

While the Alaska Pipeline began in 1977, it runs from Prudhoe Bay, but not from the oil sludge. It can run at full capacity, but it doesn't. Why not?

The answer is simply: government corruption. The U.S. government controls how much production can be used, and otherwise claims that wildlife habitat would be destroyed, which is nonsense.

Problem with Alaskan oil, though, is that once we've found it, the rest of the world will demand a share, as they share with us. Fair enough, but how much of theirs do we use, and vice versa?
-----------------------------------
Another idea is use of alternate fuels. Here in the U.S, the main alternative fuel used is Ethanol, primarily the E-85 and E-10 blends. The process takes the ethyl alcohol found in several agricultural products, removing the water, and producing into fuel. Brazil (primarily using sugarcane) has the largest ethanol production in the world, with China, Colombia, and the U.S. following, though Japan and most of Europe is now investing as well. Here in Iowa, we primarily use corn in our production, while I've read that Coors' Brewery in Colorado has begun to invest by using barley to make the ethanol. The fuel is more environmentally friendly, reducing smog and exhaust, and not using as much oil. With the rising gas prices, it's showing to be a more profitable alternative to oil (one E85 blend outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was found to be priced at $1.59 per gallon as of June 1, 2006).

Unfortunately, while most ethanol use for cars is the E10 blend, only a limited number of E85 stations exist in the U.S, predominantly in the Midwest and California. Plus, ethanol may not be compatible with some cars' fuel systems. It has been known to block fuel filters and suffer heavy evaporation losses, and can negatively affect electric fuel pumps by increasing internal wear and undesirable spark generation.
----------------------------
Why not consider ideas that may have been ahead of their time? One example is the work of William Lear, who devoloped an automobile engine in the 1960's; some sources say it was steam-powered, others say it was helium. The engine was closed-circuit, could be fired up in seconds, had a tremendous power/weight ratio, and only by-product was water. Easily, this would be probably the most environmentally-effective idea of all I've discussed.

However, there were several faults that came with this. For one, Lear eventually used a single stage turbine and got acceptable performance from it, but the engine had poor fuel economy. He did so, apparently not knowing that when the throttle was opened, a turbine has the worst water rate known, like an open steam line. There also seems to be discussion of a conspiracy between automakers and oil companies (with government help) who didn't want a rival product to steal away their profits.
--------------------------------
I had suggested to several friends that the government ought to regulate gas prices the way that they regulate the postal service. We all expect to have the price of stamps rise every 2-3 years, so why not "fix" the price of gas, with it rising 25 cents every 3 years? Case in point: by January 1, 2007, have all pumps nationwide (regardless) sell gas at an even $2 per gallon, and the price remains unchanged for 3 years. On January 1, 2010, the price increases to $2.25 per gallon. This way, the public has time to prepare for the increase, can manage their budgets effectively, and can go along with it with little complaint. In the event of an emergency disruption (i.e, hurricanes that destroy our oil production wells or something of that nature), have the government establish a 3-month temporary rise of 25 cents on the price, only to take note of it and allow us that time extention when the rate change would take place. For instance, if another Katrina would occur and knock out production in the Gulf, the government would raise the price for 3 months until the oil could get running again, and our price would go back to normal after three months; but when the rate change would normally occur, it would not take effect until we'd gotten our 3-years done (that is, on April 1 rather than January 1).
Several problems occur with this. Biggest problem with my theory, though, is the matter of supply and demand.
--------------------------------
Perhaps if we emphasized more demand for mass transit and public transportation, it would lessen our need for cars for our everyday needs. In the cities, busses are readily available; in major cities such as New York or Chicago, they have the subways or elevated trains. So why not use them? My attorney's daughter, who lives in Chicago, found out that a parking pass cost $250 a month, so she sold her car, and invested in a bus pass. And while many live a distance from work that they must commute, why not carpool? I live 20 miles from my job, and earlier this year began carpooling with a couple people from work. I'd drive one week, and the next week my friend would drive. Saved both of us some gas for our cars. When he went to work on 3rd shift, I drove a gal who didn't have a license to work, but she'd pay me $10 a week to cover about half a tank for running her to/from work.

Many people, though, don't like their freedom interrupted to do this, though. And with so many small towns across America, our choices are somewhat limited.
------------------------------
So, until we find a better way, we must continue to deal with the tyranny of being pinched at the pump.

Preparing to donate a kidney for my year's gas money,
Adam

SOURCES:
Alaska info: http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm
Ethanol info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
Steam Auto info: http://www.steamautomobile.com/ForuM/read.php?1,105,105
Jesse Ventura, "Do I Stand Alone?" Pocket Books, 2000.

Attention, the United States has launched an attack that has killed the al-Qaida leader of Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The United States would like you to believe that he was the second coming of Hitler, and with this kill, everything about the war in Iraq has been justified.

Be honest, how many of you had ever heard of al-Zarqawi before he released the video of him shooting off the big machine gun and saying all kinds of things about the United States? My best guess is none. You know how I know that? Because even the United States didn't have him in the original 52 card deck of people they were hunting. He was just added right before the video was released. I also heard a vicious rumor that he was still dead. Don't know if it's true or not, but I would keep it to yourself until it can be verified.

Anyway, after the initial video comes out showing how menacing this guy is, the United States released a blooper reel of sorts, showing this guy having problems firing the gun because it kept jamming. I keep wondering where they got the video, but in any case they were poking fun at him of sorts wondering why such a tough guy couldn't operate his own weapon. They didn't seem all that impressed with him, which made everyone question why they hadn't caught or killed him by the time the video was released.

Amazing how a little bit of desperation changes things. George Bush's approval rating has fallen faster than the stock market lately, and nobody outside of a few die-hard conservatives were approving of the war. All of a sudden, the United States has an air strike, manages to kill the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, and everything is forgiven? Excuse me if I don't roll over that quickly. I mean why has Bush's approval rating gone back up, and why has confidence in the war risen as well? Isn't this the same war? Did killing one guy we had never heard of until this year make that big a difference, or were people just trying to grasp at anything to make this war somewhat tolerable? Bush is strutting around like he single-handedly kicked al-Qaida's ass, and we're supposed to applaud him? Sorry not here.

First off, let me point out that this al-Qaida isn't a one man operation. Aren't we still looking for Osama bin Laden? Or has everyone forgotten about him? He is supposedly still the leader of al-Qaida, and yet with this other guy's death we're acting like we won the war.....again. We made that mistake before when our President got off of that jet in a jumper suit and proclaimed it was mission accomplished. Wish he would've actually gotten to use the jumper suit and jumped.

This operation is something a bit more complicated then the government is making it out to be. In this country, we've had President's assassinated and yet, the government has still moved forward. You could say that this is a terrorist organization and not built the same way as a country's government. I will give you that, so let's take a look at another organization. We'll call it the Mafia. You may have heard of them? They're still around from what I understand, and the government has done things like capture top men (Gotti) and let them rot in prison. Didn't Jimmy Hoffa used to have something to do with the Mafia? How did it fair after he went missing? Al Capone and Lucky Luciano operated various versions of the mob and after those powerhouses disappeared from this earth, things kept moving along. The point is, if it is an organization, they have a chain of command in place. I would think something as volatile as a terrorist organization, it is imperative to have a chain of co mmand. Sure, you might have in-fighting and grabs for power, but that is no different than businesses or the mob, or struggles in other governments.

In case nobody has looked recently, the al-Qaida has already replaced al-Zarqawi. The man is named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. He's been a terrorist since 1982, and has trained under al-Zarqawi. So, the man has experience. What makes the government think that things are going to change all that much in Iraq? It could end up being worse, simply because this guy could be out to make an impression and prove a point. Who knows? I guess he's number 54 in the deck of cards now. Can't go to 55, because there are only two jokers that come with a deck.

Another key to this whole 'let's celebrate' fiasco is that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, al-Qaida would never have been in there. We're celebrating something that we caused. Does that make any sense? If we hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam would've still been in power and al-Qaida wouldn't have had a reason to go in to Iraq. They weren't the best of buddies like the United States would like you to believe, and one really didn't have all that much to do with the other. It is known that Osama went and asked Saddam for support, but Saddam refused because he didn't see anything in it for him. But the government would have you believe they were hand in hand in planning out the attacks on 9/11. Of course this is the same government that's still looking for those weapons of mass destruction that they "knew" were all around Iraq.

Basically, this administration has made a habit of throwing around anything that supports any claim they want to make. They did it with al-Qaida and connecting them with Saddam. They did it with weapons of mass destruction. They've done it with the phone and wire tapping, and it even goes back to when Bush said Osama wanted to take our freedoms away, which was why he attacked us. It isn't the reason he attacked the United States. Now I can throw around facts and figures too, just to try and prove a point.

Osama bin Laden for years has wanted the United States out of the Middle East. It wasn't going to happen, and most likely it never will. However, Osama didn't see it that way and made threat after threat to this government to remove themselves from Middle East affairs, which the government didn't do. Personally, I wouldn't expect this government to withdraw anything from the Middle East, nor would I want them too. It is an important region in the world, both politically and economically. You can't afford to pull back from the area. But I never recall this government offering to meet with Osama bin Laden and give him a chance to express his issues with this country face to face. Now before you start saying this country does not deal with terrorists, I will be quick to remind you of the many times they met with Yassar Arafat, who wasn't exactly an angel, not to mention leaders of several other countries such as Syria and Saudia Arabia that have known terrorist ties. That's before I even mention the fact that this government had dealings with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein years ago, before they "turned' on us.

My point is, Osama attacked this country for a political reason. He wanted to prove a point to this government that he wasn't kidding around. Thousands of people died all because of him, and he is responsible for that, because he ordered the attack.

Now you flip over to George W. Bush. He decides to hunt Osama bin Laden down, which I whole heartedly agree with. He goes into Afghanistan looking for him, because that is where he was hiding. Okay, that makes perfect sense. Then he decides to invade Iraq, because they have become a threat to international security. Huh? when did this happen? Since half of the man's country is a no-fly zone, and all of it is being monitored by satellites, since when did he get the money and time to build nuclear facilities and create and store nuclear weapons? Did I miss something since the first Persian Gulf war when American soldiers handed Iraqis their ass on a platter?

But Bush had everyone buying it. He had his little lemmings from Fox News to Rush to Ann Coulter spouting what a wonderful idea this was. Like lemmings, however, they failed to research the depth and long term ramifications of this type of insurgence. All they knew was their conservative President was taking action and they were behind him no matter what.

In essence, Bush attacked Iraq for political reasons. Started a war, overthrew a country, and created a whole bunch of unrest where there wasn't any before. Thousands of people are dead because he ordered the attack. He is responsible for the Iraq war, so the question is; isn't he as liable for what it going on over there as Osama was for what happened on 9/11? See how you can shape things to prove your point, which this administration does very well.

Anyone who stands against the President is labeled as un-American and doesn't stand for freedom. However, if you look toward the founding fathers, who have a little more credibility than Bush, they said you should stand up for yourself, and not let your government get away with things. Jefferson went so far as to say you needed a revolution every 20 years or so, otherwise things grow stale and stagnate. They viewed the government as a necessary evil, but people should view it with caution. Look at what happens when a government has control, and slowly imposes its will, while slowly withdrawing rights at the same time. Nazi Germany had that type of government.

Now, am I saying that George W. Bush is the same as Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler. No of course not, that would be silly. I am saying he should be held accountable for the stupidity, lies and mistakes that have been made. Think about your own life. Think if you were going to work, not paying attention to the road while you were driving (stupid) and then you hit and killed someone (an accident, but still someone is dead). Then you get to work late and make up some story that you did some other stuff for work and you weren't really late (a lie). If all of this was found out for what it really was, what do you think would happen to you? And this is just a generic incident.

The conservatives pride themselves on morals and that is why they were trying to get rid of Bill Clinton. Now what Bill Clinton did was wrong, but think about it. He lied to cover up an affair in the White House. He lied about sex. Like I said, it was wrong, but the Republicans saw fit to try and throw him out of office for it. Using that stream of logic, what do you think should happen to a man who lied to start a war? He rallied a whole country behind him, and then went and attacked a nation who wasn't doing anything to anybody. Granted the guy running the country was scum, and if someone would've snuck in during the night and put a bullet in his head, I wouldn't have lost sleep over it. But the fact is they weren't doing anything. Bush can say what he wants about the United Nation's security counsel, and how he defied the resolutions, but this is the same man who said we didn't need the United Nations. I love how he basically gave the United Nations the middle finger when all they wanted was some proof before they were willing to go to war in Iraq. Granted there was some crooked stuff going on there, but no more than anywhere else. This country couldn't produce the proof, so Bush went ahead and invaded anyway. Since it was their resolutions Saddam was supposedly scoffing at, don't you think most of the countries of the United Nations would've been a little more upset if it were as big a deal as the US was making it out to be? So, we can tell the UN to shove it, but nobody else can? Is that how it works? We're the bullies on the block? It's nice how we came up with the UN when it suited us, but we toss them aside when they get in our way. Kinda the whole theme of the administration if you ask me.

In general, this administration is two-faced. That isn't anything new, because most administrations are. However, in this case it is so extreme that it isn't even funny. It just isn't over the big stuff such as war and the economy, but little stuff like the national anthem being sung in English. They take stances, change their positions, lie about what they said previously (like Rumsfeld saying they didn't know where the weapons of mass destruction were, but two years before knew exactly where they were), and then they lie some more. Like someone said onetime; the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Let me tell you my friends, this administration has told some whoppers....until next time....the Novak Notebook.