One Nation Debajo de Dios

De nuevo, una lucha ha entrado en erupción sobre la naturaleza multilingüe de nuestra gran nación. (In the interest of clarity, the rest of today's post will be presented in English.) For our spanish speaking readers, "Buenos dias." Apparently we are once again fired up over the question of a multi-lingual America.

That's right ladies and gentlemen. Never mind the millions of undocumented immigrants living within our borders or the thousands who cross them every day. Never mind the question of National Security or the welfare of honest people trying to find a better life. What we need to discuss right now is whether or not it's ok to sing the National Anthem in Spanish.

A British music producer, Adam Kidron, is releasing "Nuestro Himno," or "Our Anthem," in what he says is a tribute to America's immigrants. The song features artists such as Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull and Puerto Rican singers Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon. The regular version of the song is out this Friday and is basically "The Star Spangled Banner" in Spanish. A remix however is due out in June and includes lines spoken in English that bash American immigration policy. Funny, that sounds like the Democratic Party's way of honoring people, you know, trashing other people.

The President was asked about the song today and had this to say: (care of Yahoo! News)

"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

At first he had suggested they learn to speak American, but new White House spokesman, Tony Snow, quickly reminded the President that American isn't a language. I generally love W, and I don't mean to make fun, but how many times can you say English in one sentence?

The very idea that this is a major headline of a story is ludicrous. As Stereotype has already discussed, we might be in the first phases of a complete overhaul of a major government organization, FEMA. Gas prices are at incredibly high levels, Osama Bin Laden is still evading capture, Iran is about this close to starting World War III, and I seem to remember that we are fighting a war in the Middle East. Iraq, I believe it was. I could not care less whether some record exec and a couple of mid-level rappers want to release a version of "The Star Spangled Banner" in Spanish. I don't care if they release one in Pig Latin. As much as I harp on Democrats penchant for screaming when they're angry instead of trying to fix problems, conservatives are to blame on this one. There's a reason the news agencies run with this story. People are going to get up in arms over this. Joe and Jane Public are going to be pissed. I can hear them talking over dinner now.

"Jane, did you read about this nonsense these imigrants are doing now? Singing the national anthem in Spanish. It's shameful. When I was in school we sang in English. Now what was wrong with that?"

"Nothing dear."

"You're darn right, nothing. I'm gonna give our congressman a call."

So, please from one humble blogger to his beloved American brothers and sisters. Guardemos nuestros ojos en la bola. Excuse me. I meant, Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We've got a lot bigger worries than what language the guy next to you at the ballpark is singing in.

"Deliver Us from FEMA"

Says the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a report released to the important senators today (to the public next week). An article from the Washington Post has this summarize the report:

...[The report] makes 86 recommendations that would undo major changes made when President Bush and Congress launched the department in 2003, and would reverse parts of a reorganization ordered by Secretary Michael Chertoff last summer. It stops short of restoring FEMA to independent, Cabinet-level status, as many in Congress and former agency directors want, but would promote its chief to confer directly with the president in a crisis, according to a summary released to news organizations...

The new agency would be called the National Preparedness and Response Authority (NPRA...just doesn't have the same ring to it) and would still be under the banner of Homeland Security saying that separating FEMA from Homeland would "do nothing to solve the key problems that Katrina has revealed, including a lack of resources and weak and ineffective leadership." A statement leading one to ask, "And what about that leadership? Chertoff's getting kicked to the curb, right?"--Uh...no. This failure to call for the resignation of Chertoff disappointed several House Democrats but admit that it is complete.

There are two major problems I see with their reasoning for wanting the removal of Chertoff:

1. Ultimately, this task should have never been assigned to his Department. Keeping terrorists out of the US should be a fulltime job and his attention should be focused sigle-mindedly upon that task. Let's assume he was doing this (there is no reason not to) one could see how a hurricane could sneak up on him. That statement was intended to be sarcastic, but he could not have been expected to focusing intently on hurricanes when there are other national security concerns. Also his mandate is over the entirety of DHS he relies on his subordinates to tell him what is going on. This brings me to my second problem.
2. He had a Presidential appointee and complete idiot (disaster-wise) running FEMA who did not effectively communicate to him realtime issues on the ground. Michael "Brownie" Brown's previous job, before FEMA, was investigating ethics concerns for the IAHA (International Arabian Horse Association)...incidently, he was forced to resign from his post at IAHA (judging from the results of his work at IAHA and FEMA i have determined that acronyms are Brownie's kryptonite). Brownie has also blamed just about everybody involved in the Katrina Debacle. He started by laying most of the blame on Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco (neither, by any stretch of the imagination, blameless), then recant and taking on much of the responsibility himself, but most recently blaming Michael Chertoff and indirectly President Bush.

Now, don't get me wrong. Chertoff did not do a good job on this one, and there is no way to predict, if a terrorist attack occurs, he will be able to respond in a manner different from Katrina. But the fact is that Homeland is an amalgom of 22 previously existing federal agencies and the third largest cabinet department. Chertoff is the man who managed the reorganization of these separate agencies in to Homeland. If we are going to fire him for something, fire him for bureaucratizing Homeland into an organization unable to move without completing requisition forms in triplicate.

It is my opinion that DHS was great in theory but whoever made the decision to galvanize these 22 separate departments was lacking in practical vision but was able to wrap the idea in a pretty enough package for the administration to buy it. The fact is the Department in its present state is too bureaucratic to be effective in energency management and I hope that giving FEMA a new name and a cabinet postition for its director will help it. The most important thing that needs to be done, though, for this action to be effective is to put QUALIFIED people in the power positions. We don't need another horse-judge-investigating lawyer in control of that post; we need someone with credentials. And we need it quick, hurricane season is right around the corner and I don't feel like swimming to work.

Sympathy for the Devil

Defending oil companies is about as easy as trying to sing the praises of our favorite Doritos loving deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein (his mustache is always well groomed). Like Monsieur Hussein, oil execs are not easy to love. They make billions, sell a product we all hate to buy and yet can'’t possibly live without, and let'’s face it; they look smarmy in their suits.

If you'’d like to hear what the Oil companies have to say about the recent brouhaha check this out Facts on Fuel Basically they suggest that gasoline prices have risen far less in comparison to other consumer goods and services since 1982. 66.8% for gasoline versus 396.1% for tobacco products for example. They also correct the fallacy that we are at "“record highs."” If you adjust for inflation prices were as high as $4.87 during Jimmy Carter'’s administration. The website also addresses the "“windfall"” profits of the last couple of years, comparing oil and natural gas industry profits to the U.S. industry average. In the fourth quarter of last year they made 8.9 cents on every dollar of sales as compared to the industry average of 6.5 cents. That may not seem like much but we are talking about billions of gallons. So when we hear the oil companies made "“record"” profits last year, yes they did but they made "“record"” expenditures, too. This is not to say that they are not making vast sums of money.

Speaking of, does anybody know how you get into the oil business? Did I miss my opportunity there? I'm Republican so I don't have a conscience to get in the way of me swindling the working poor to line my own pockets. **WARNING** The previous sentence contained rampant sarcasm. Handle with care. **END WARNING**

If you want to know why we refuse to give the oil habit as a nation, I'll tell you. We like it when the car goes "vroom."Honest to God, if the automotive industry would put out an electric car that revved instead of hummed, it would sell like hotcakes. Maybe we could just shove industrial size playing cards in the rims or something. I'll get to work on that. We as a nation are not going to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels until we have no other option. I mean literally, none. As in:

"No sir, you can't have five gallons of gasoline. We've used it all...Yes sir, all of it...Nope, there's none left in Alaska...Yes sir, we've looked."

Until that conversation plays out, we'll continue paying ever-higher gas prices and driving our six thousand pound, twelve seat, Chevrolet Harbingers or whatever the hell they call the things now. And as far as alternative fuels are concerned, Stereo is right. We have to pick ONE. We can't buy a car that will run on ethanol and hydrogen and bio-diesel and fart power, so pick one, stick with it and tell me where to pick up the car.

Like Benz I am a man that believes that necessity is the mother of invention. I have never worried about the impending absence of fossil fuels. I figured if we ran out of oil on a Friday afternoon, Exxon, Chevrolet and GE would hold a joint press conference on Monday morning letting us know that they have perfected hydrogen fuel cells. We can buy an adapter for our cars for $250 at every Chevy dealer and refills will be available at Exxon stations worldwide, immediately. My point is, people who make money, rarely stop making it. There's a reason the largest mobile phone service provider is AT&T. Companies adapt to changing times and so will the oil companies. The only question is, can we make them adapt faster? Is there some sort of pressure we, the consumer, can exert to make the changeover sooner rather than later?

Bush thinks: Mmm, I might have to tap that...

...the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that is.

In a speech yesterday, amid ridiculously high gas prices (by American standards), the President called for probes into allegations of price gouging by oil companies, eased enviornmental regulations, and actually suspended deposits to the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) all in the name of lowering gas prices.

Rock on!! Right? Well, not really. You see, the SPR is just about filled up anyway and, according to Bloomberg, was only putting away about 25,000 barrels of the 10 million imported into the US daily. Stop trying to figure out the percent in your head...0.25%. this means available to us will now be a quarter of a percent more oil than we already had. let's put that in practical terms: say you have a vehicle with a 20-gallon tank, (assuming the exta petrol is distributed evenly to every US gas station) 0.05 gallons in your tank will be thanks to the SPR deposit suspension...at $3.00 a gallon it's kind of like the government giving you $0.15 every time you fill up.

Now, of course, since politics play a role, we are likely to save more than $0.15 per tank in the upcoming weeks but the higher summer prices are coming anyway and the SPR deposit suspension is going to cotribute very little to us in the long run (probably the short run, too). Expect to see gas prices dip in the next few days but it will likely be only a couple of cents.

But no matter how low this drops prices, it is only a band aid. What are long-term, real-world solutions to this issue? We invite your comments.

Moving on to another part of the presidents speech, price gouging:

Can their be any doubt? Exxon's chairman, Lee Raymond, has been give a retirement package in the neighborhood of $400 million (this is what that looks like in zeros $400,000,000...EIGHT ZEROS!!). If you work that into an hourly wage (based on how long he worked for Exxon) it comes to about $6,000 an hour. Check out this story if you're not pissed enough already. This guy charges you and I three bucks a gallon then gets to sit on $400 million for the rest of his life.

Your thoughts on this subject, too.

This is all I have for now. Enjoy your extra couple of cents at the pump...buy yourself an RC Cola.

I on the Right and He on the Left and Never the Twain shall Meet

Well, Stereotype, you broke my record for most commented article. Rats. I appreciate all of the well thought and articulated arguments. You guys make some great points and (most importantly) you have an opinion on things that matter.

Some of the comments on the previous posts ventured into the question of a viable third party. Please check out the above mentioned comments for what stirred this up. I started to just respond there, but I realized it was going to take a little space.

Stereotype and I were talking Saturday about the pros and cons of multi-party systems. He thinks they bog things down and for many reasons would never work here. All weekend I've thought about the birth of a viable third party. I love it in theory. A practical group of moderates coming in and slapping the big boys around, reminding them what the hell their supposed to be doing in Washington in the first place. Ah, it would be sweet. However, realistically Stereo is right.

The only way a third party will ever make any hay in our system is behind an enigmatic and well-loved figure. Someone with support and appeal on both sides of the aisle. Imagine if you will the following situation: during the 2000 Republican Primaries, John McCain gets fed up. He sees the establishment is backing Bush and refuses to play second fiddle to a less experienced politico. He gets on the horn to his buddy Jo Lieberman. Lieb has likewise been taking a tongue-lashing for too long from his party elders. "Jo," McCain says. "This shit has gone on long enough. You and I know neither side gets it right, and I think people will agree with us." The two of them, stride out Teddy Roosevelt-Bull Moose Style, to show up the Party bosses and strike a blow for the little guy.

They get into the race to make noise. Allow other moderate voices in their respective parties to be heard, but suddenly they have a little heat. McCain, ever the media darling, is seen as the ultimate reformer. Taking to heart the forefather's loathing of Parties. Across the nation other moderate Republicans and Democrats start campaigning as New Federalists (some forward-thinking staffer came up with that). By the time the general election rolls around millions of new voters have registered for the first time, finally excited about their voice being heard. Election night comes and surprise, surprise. The New Federalists have actually won, the general election, but alas, not enough electoral votes. No one has enough electoral votes. New Federalists have however won lots of open Senate and Congress Seats as well as welcomed several incumbents into their ranks. The next Congress will be roughly divided into thirds. Democrats, New Federalists and Republicans. Why would that be important? Let me throw some electoral college rules on you. Care of Wikipedia.

If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority, then the New House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. The House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose (that is, one vote per state, which is determined by the majority decision of the delegation from that state; if a state delegation is evenly split that state is considered as abstaining). This vote would be repeated if necessary until one candidate receives the votes of more than half the state delegations or —at least 26 state votes, given the current number, 50, of states in the union.

If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the United States Senate must do the same, with the top two vote getters for that office as candidates. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case, not by States. It is unclear if the sitting Vice President would be entitled to cast his usual tie-breaking vote if the Senate should be evenly split on the matter.

So, the new Congress elect McCain and Lieberman President and Vice President. Thus begins the new era of the three party America. Happily ever after, right. Not quite.

This new reign would only last as long as McCain's Presidency, if that long. Lieberman, God bless him, is no spring chicken and while I love his ethics, and a lot of his policies, I wouldn't vote for him for President. Neither would very many other people. So after Johnny Boy has his day, who takes the reigns of this New World Order. No one. That's the problem. The beauty of the two party system is its simplicity. We can all line up, pick our t-shirt color and then we know where to stand. When one President's reign is over, we don't have to be bothered with finding a new Messiah, because the Party will pick one for us, clean him up, put him in his sacrificial robes and point him towards Calvary. Ah, simplicity. It appeals to the consumer in you, doesn't it.

You see, that massive coalition of moderates, all those heretofore unregistered voters, they weren't following ideas. Or at least not the same ones. They were following a man. And when that man's time has come and gone, they will all wander off into their own parts of the room again. No more coalition, no more third party. But at least we all know what color t-shirt to wear.

Are Crazy People Speaking for You?

I would love to express myself on what is wrong with the two major parties, but where to start? Should it be the fact that this “conservative” president has done more to expand the role of the federal government than Bill Clinton could in his wildest dreams or that the only response Democrats can muster to a clearly and repeatedly faltering Republican administration is, “See, we told you Bush sucks”; maybe the rampant corruption within the present administration or the fact that the Democrats are no better; maybe the fact that the Republicans are too far right for most people but the Democrats are too far left and the moderates won’t stand up for anything, letting the Deans and Frists speak for them…or even worse the Frankens and Hannitys? The fact is: we all know what’s wrong with the parties but knowing is worthless without action.

I hate the term moderate it makes one sound like a fence rider, which most moderates, and I, are not. We have very clearly defined beliefs and values but my “moderate” beliefs are often different than another “moderate’s” beliefs I may be pro-choice he may be pro-life or he may not see it as his place to make that decision. The problem is: when a hot-button issue pops up, the partisan-moderates (the ones who claim either Republican or Democrat affiliation) clam up and the crazies speak out. Moderates are supposed to be the people within a party who say to the extreme left or right (depending on the party), “Ok, let’s chill out here people think you’re trying to create a theocracy,”—or—“people think molesting children is wrong. Maybe we shouldn’t support NAMBLA.” Why is Howard Dean the leader of the DNC? — because no moderate democrat stood up and said, “Uh, wait a minute. Didn’t this cat lose the ’04 nomination to Kerry because America thinks he’s crazy? Don’t you think us picking him might reflect poorly on us?” Why does Donald Rumsfeld still have a job? -- it is because no conservatives, aside from Pat Buchannan (of all people) have sided with the 6 multi-star generals to say this guy needs to go. (I can't believe i agree with Buchannan...gross).

So why is this? Why is everything so polarized in Washington? It is because if you speak against the party you are a labeled a traitor to your party or even your country. No Republican wants to speak out against the President because he knows that he will be branded as “aiding the terrorists” or some crap like that. I remember watching Foxnews a few months back and hearing some nut say that John McCain was a terrorist sympathizer because of his anti-torture legislation. And the left wing is no better: the ultra-left has moved away from important things like policy to simply opposing everything that Bush does. Granted there is plenty of room for opposition, but you have to propose solutions in order to be taken seriously. Solutions would be made if those partisan moderates would stand up. Why do you think that the people of this country respect McCain and Lieberman so much? – it is because they speak out when their parties do something stupid. But they can’t do it alone; others need to stand up.

The Democrats are not doing well. They’ve elected an extremely liberal (borderline socialist) committee leader in Howard Dean, a man with little connection to the people whom he represents (or reality for that matter), a man so extreme that he lost the 2004 Democratic nomination to a man who has yet to form a coherent position on any issue.

The republicans are not doing well. It has been scandal after scandal and now it looks like Bush was directly involved in leaking the information involving Iraq and Valerie Plame.

Rogue is correct in saying that Republicans would be wise to follow McCain and I would add that Democrats would be wise to follow Lieberman. Both are intelligent men with a great love of country and party…IN THAT ORDER.

********************************

Now let me respond to the posts by Rogue and Mission:

Rouge first. I’ll respond point for point:

1. Gay Marriage

o No, America is not ready for gay marriage anytime soon. That doesn’t mean that America shouldn’t be ready for it. I’ll tell you for certain that the homosexuals who want to get married are ready for it. It is only those who don’t like the thought of two men (or women) having sex or those who believe it to be an abomination before God (and feel a duty to impose their beliefs upon those who do not share them) that are opposed to it. meaning: those individuals on whom in would have the least direct effect.

2. America doesn’t think abortion is right

o This is such a complex topic. I, personally, would not consider it an option for an unwanted pregnancy, but I am neither a woman nor have I ever been in that position and I do not see it as my duty to mount a campaign against this law. Your comment to Mission’s post about my position on this is incorrect; I think that it is a state issue. Government needs to be involved in it as much as it is involved in any other medical procedure. Let me make it clear that the thought of aborting a pregnancy makes me absolutely ill but, given the opportunity, I would not vote for a federal law prohibiting it.

3. On this point we are in complete agreement.

4. America respects all religions and expect ours to be respected

o Sort of. We accept the individual’s right to his/her religious beliefs…but “America respects all religions”?—that’s a lot of religions. But that is not even the point; the only way that all religions can be treated equally is if government and religion are separate. I want the government to have no part in my spiritual life and if that means that the 10 commandment have to be taken down in court rooms, it is a small price to pay.

Mission:

I’m going to respond mainly to your closing paragraph.

You say that it is a stretch to say that moderates will find refuge under McCain. I am inclined to agree with that statement...refuge is not the right word; that would be a stretch. What I think they will find is the least objectionable alternative to whomever the Democrats (assuming they hold to recent form) will run against him. With the exception of Edwards, who I do not believe has the connections to get to nomination, I don’t (at this point) see any prominent democrat with the universal appeal of McCain. I also think that he will make an excellent president, if elected; he has the potential to pull together these two parties in order to work for the greater good of this country. I don’t see anybody else with that potential on either side of the aisle.

How to Win and Keep Congress: A Drunken Road Map for Republicans

Well, well, well 100 hits in only three days. And on a Holiday weekend no less. Well done indeed. Now to the task at hand.

Men and women smarter and more experienced than I have talked ad nauseum about the growth over the last 20 years of the Republican party. I did not capitalize party because I do not mean registered members. Those numbers have not grown significantly in the decades of my life. The number of people who agree with and support the tenants of the Republican platform on the other hand, have swelled. While the Metropolis' of the east and west coasts rail against the Christian Right, and bemoan election results again and again, middle America has found each other and realized that we can all agree on many points:

1. America is not ready for Gay marriage, nor will it be anytime soon.
2. America does not think that abortion is a right. While we respect the private nature of a woman's medical decisions, we also respect the life of a fetus.
3. America does not like those that attack us or would attack us under the right circumstances. We care less about the method of apprehension than we do that they are caught and punished. We do not approve of torture, but we understand that a desperate enemy must be fought desperately.
4. America respects all religions and we expect ours to be respected as well.

I could go on but I think the point is made. Middle America is not Republican, it is not Democrat, it is America. The Republican party happens to be a little more American than the other guys that's all.

For the last decade, Republican's have not made great use of their position of power. During the Clinton years, instead of articulating their ideas and connecting with an often moderate President on a bipartisan agenda, they aired his dirty laundry in front of the entire world. Unnecessary and possibly damaging, except that it wasn't. After Bush's election they raided the pantry and sold their children's nest egg for a bottle of Thunderbird. Making deals with any lobbyist with a wallet and passing more pork than Jimmy Dean. Unnecessary, and possibly damaging, except it wasn't. They backed the President on a War that has turned sour and the majority of America now regrets. Unnecessary, and possibly damaging, except it wasn't. They pushed through the appointments of two Supreme Court Justices that the media and the opposition called radical and out of the mainstream. Unnecessary, and possibly damaging, except it won't be.

How can the Republican Party back unpopular wars and Justices, spend frivolously and without regard for deficits, and still hope to maintain control of (not one but) both houses of Congress? Simple really, the Democrats have apparently given up. I hear people complain about the absence of a viable third party, but I want to know what happened to the second one. The Democrats had an unbelievable opportunity to oust George W. in 2004. So great in fact that even with a shell of a candidate they almost managed to pull it off. The fact that they couldn't gives me great confidence that the Republicans will maintain most, if not all, of the national seats of power for most of my adult life.

On the other hand it scares me. A Party (even one I generally agree with) will become corrupt if left unchecked. And a corrupt Republican Party in control would only be slightly better than a Democratic Party in control. So, I therefore offer the following:

How to straighten out the Republican Party (Since we're going to be in power, we might as well use it correctly):

1. Follow John McCain. This cannot be stressed enough. He has (regardless of what you may have heard) fairly impeccable conservative credentials. Pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, sensible on immigration, Hawkish on foreign policy, aggressive on ethics violations and maintaining discipline fiscally
2. Stop driving wedge issues. America knows where we stand socially and they chose us. No need to give the other side excuses to shout.
3. Cut the pork and pass lobbying reform. Seriously...now. If in doubt about how to do this see suggestion #1
4. Pass sensible immigration reform. Give the conservatives a wall, give the latino's a guest worker program, and give us all a secure border.
5. Did I mention follow McCain?

John McCain is old that's true, but only Giuliani scores better in national polls about a theoretical '08 race, and besides Reagan was old and that worked out pretty well. He is not only where the Party needs to be, but where the country already is. If you have a McCain led Republican Party we don't need a third party anymore the "silent majority" of moderates would have found their place.

Introductions: a Conclusion

We the People, sounds good doesn’t it? That phrase, We the People, is the axel around which our country moves. It is a stunning preface to a document written when monarchies were the standard. Something to the effect of, “JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects...” (translation of the Magna Carta, 1215 courtesy of the British Library) was what the People were used to hearing; they were always below authority never in control of their own lives, much less policy. Now, suddenly we, “The People” had been thrust to the forefront of decision-making. And we embraced it. We created a country where we have the right to do and say almost anything, the greatest nation the modern world has ever seen. We built a country where people had the right (and one could say the duty) to rail against injustices in the streets, to speak out on oppression and greed. What happened to that country? It’s still here but the majority of its occupants have given up on making a difference.

Israel had its lowest voter turnout in the history of its democracy. 63.2% of individuals of voting age. Just to put that in perspective: the US has not tickled a number that high since 1964 (61.9%). From the time of Israel's re-founding, their lowest turnout is almost identical to our highest. We are a nation of the apathetic, especially the 20-somethings. Most of the individuals in my age demographic with whom I have contact let government happen to them. We forget or don’t care that we are the people in We the People. We forget that it was people our age and younger who wrestled this country from the British. We forget that 18-25s threw British tea into Boston Harbor. We forget that the founding fathers were not that much older than us when the seeds of revolution were being sown. It is time to remember, to take action.

It is time that We the People stand up for the country We founded. Find a cause and work toward the fulfillment of its mission. When you finish, find a new one. Research your candidates and get to the polls on Election Day, and make sure they do their job. We the People put them in office and We the People have an obligation to make sure they serve it correctly.

********

It is important to mention that the three contributors to this site come not only from different sides of the political aisle but also from vastly different parts of the country. RythymMission lives in north Florida, in a swing state (swinging more to the red side in recent elections); Drunken Rogue lives on the buckle of the Bible Belt in Northern Louisiana (oh, so red); I (the Stereotype) live in rocks-throwing distance of the semi-deserted, partially-devastated New Orleans, a city whose mayoral election doesn’t (at this point) even have a republican candidate polling in double-digit percentages (a decidedly blue region). That along with our separate ideologies gives each of us perspectives that the others do not have and should make for interesting discussion. We also welcome you to add your input. We are by no means authorities or experts; we merely seek to be informed and active American citizens and to, hopefully, inspire others to stop using apathy as activism.

Introductions part Deux

Well, what an experiment this will be. For those keeping score: The Stereotype is the moderate, rhythm Mission is our liberal and I, the Inebriated Scoundrel, am the conservative. It should make for a very interesting page. Witty banter, spirited arguments and heated debates are not only welcome but expected.

The topic is Apathy. I capitalize because it is currently of the utmost importance. In every conceivable situation, from the grave to the trivial, from the enrichment of uranium in Iran to the latest vote on American Idol, apathy is the enemy. I'm a big "Sopranos" fan. I am currently re-watching season four, and in the final episode of that season Carmella makes the statement to Tony, "More is lost by indecision than by wrong decision." This idea is at the heart of this page.

Have a liberal opinion, have a conservative opinion, have a moderate opinion. But be informed, and have an opinion. For most of you that read this blog, our years as opinion makers are only moments away. We (the twenty-somethings) are literally the future of this nation and world, and from cigarette brands to TV shows to Presidential candidates, we have to make choices. If you don't believe we have the ability to elect John McCain or John Edwards President then you are deluding yourself. There is a reason that Howard Dean went as far as he did in 2004 that reason is people just like you and me. Look at the recent election of House Majority Leader. The blogosphere was so opinionated that a dark horse ended up walking away with it. Voice is power. Never fail to use yours.

This is your home for those opinions. No value judgments, no name calling...Alright maybe a little name calling. But the point is we want to know what you think (and obviously we want you to know what we think). Please comment on any and all topics. Suggest future discussions and articles and let us know that we aren't the only ones that fear Apathy.

If you don't speak up, we all suffer.