The media's fascination with Hurricane Katrina and it's effect on New Orleans, is beyond my comprehension. Never before has the media flirted with the idea of socialism more then what they believe the residents of New Orleans deserve. Hurricane Katrina which was a natural disaster really shouldn't be considered a national disaster at all, as it had only a regional effect. Every single person in the city was warned to evacuate, but many said "We've rode this out before, we'll do it again" like cliché characters in a bad B-movie. They made a stupid mistake that cost them their lives, and while I reverse what happened in a second, they do not elicit an extreme amount of sympathy. As for the residents who were house ridden and could not escape the two people who were responsible for their evacuation were Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin who are still in power, the mayor actually re-elected, shows how the voters care more about home town pride than actual competence. Michael Brown and President Bush became the fall guys, for the fact that some disaster relief that followed was too slow but again the people who were there were lucky they got rescued at all. We have now come to a time when a person rescued first words are "What took so long" as opposed to "Thank you". A lack of responsibility over the fact that hurricanes are a regional problem and not part of an anti-black agenda still permeates in New Orleans. Where you choose to live geographically, you accept the weather that happens in the area. I live in Michigan, and accept cold winters and bad roads, you live in Florida or New Orleans you get hurricanes. The fact that the residents were so ill prepared says more about them then anything else. 

                                                         
                                                  Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin

The federal government has wrongly given hundreds of billions of dollars in "relief". The only job that falls under the federal government, is to help rescue residents, (when the governor asks), and to help with the clean up. Done and done. But then when it comes to rebuilding that should and must happen in the private sector. The controversy over the FEMA trailers was shocking, I thought those living there would be grateful instead they had the nerve to complain. It’s a national assumption that when your house gets destroyed, if you have insurance it's replaced otherwise it’s horrible luck. But again and again the media talks about how the government is failing the residents of Big Easy in "Investigation" news pieces and the residents are more then happy to play the victim. What really is not being told is that the residents are really failing themselves. The high murder rate, incompetent elected officials, and the fact that it was a city with substantial flaws to begin with, shows nothing can "save" New Orleans. NBC News had a wonderful piece about Northern Iraq, (which is safer then New Orleans), where all rebuilding is not being done by US troops but by private Middle East investors. So what does it say when Iraq is a better place to invest then New Orleans?

There is that classical scene in "Mary Poppins", where Mary arrives to meet the Bank children coming down through the sky on an umbrella. She lets the children know immediately she is there for a finite time and will leave as soon as the wind commands it. If anything that scene represents my relationship with the Republican Party. I became a Republican during the 7th grade, through an immediate love of George W. Bush and was then a strong "values voter". I was raised in conservative churches all my life and had been a member of Right to Life since I could walk. It was the right fit at the time. Then through middle school and high school, my friends started to get more diverse, to say the least. I was always the good kid in the group (still am), who never smoked, drank, and had sex. I was a puritan through and through. My opinions were well known and spoken quite often, which may account for the teachers I had, sharing Tylenol like sticks of gum. My friends though challenged me, and I soon found out that some were gay. At first I didn't believe them, gays were something seen in a movie, not in real life. But soon it was evident, they were not choosing this lifestyle it was thrust upon them, and they were enduring hatred from the same people I supported. In the 9th grade, I changed my tune of gay rights, and became an advocate instead. The 2002 election was timid in Michigan so it was uneventful. Then in 2004, the year when I became a Republican political activist, I thought, drank, became for all purposes involved in the Bush vs. Kerry battle. When John Kerry conceded the election during my 5th hour (my teacher would dress in black, head to toe the next day), some of the girls started to cry, and I had to hide my smile. I asked the teacher to be excused to the restroom, were I silently screamed it happiness for what must have been fifteen minutes straight. I did not stop smiling for three days.

The 2006 elections had a dark cloud over them, yet this was the first time I was able to fully give myself body and soul to the campaign. While being a student working full time, every spare minute was spent volunteering. I easily worked hundreds of hours, calling voter after voter, going from campaign to campaign, and knocking on door after door. All this time I was talking to my friends and young people I hung around. All but a few were Democrats and when I asked why they stated the party's intolerance of certain people. Every single young Republican agreed that the party’s stance needed to change as well. On election day, a day that was raining non stop, I stood outside of an elementary school with only an umbrella for comfort, and gave out candy and pamphlets for the entire day supporting a state senator who would loss her seat that night. I realized right after election night 2006, that if our party does not change, we would be doomed to repeat loss after loss. I've always been more outspokenly liberal during off election years not because my opinions changed but because I did not have an active campaign to focus on and an opponent to destroy. Arguing with some polite Christian conservatives (which I enjoy) and dealing with the insults and scorn from others, is a price I am willing to pay. First and foremost to support those who I care about and secondly to stop a party that is losing the youth of our country and therefore future elections.

Senator Larry Craig’s speech yesterday, was perhaps the saddest event I’ve witnessed in recent memory. Here is a gay man who’s fear of coming out is so strong, that he would rather become the national laughing stock, rather than say the words “I am a gay American.” The evidence is clear; Larry Craig has a long history of homosexual activity. As early as 1967, Larry Craig solicited sex from a pledge in his fraternity. He denies it happened. In 1982, Craig was rumored to be having sex with congressional male pages. He denies it happened. In 1994, Craig tried picking up a man at a store. He denies it happened. In 2004, a well respected Republican professional, said he had sex with Larry Craig. He denies it happened. In 2006, former Republican blogger, Mike Rogers, said that the Senior Senator from Idaho was gay. He denied it. Then the absolutely irrefutable evidence, Senator Craig solicited sex in a men’s bathroom, and pleaded guilty. Yet according to his speech yesterday, he denies the event happened. This is a man so deep in denial about his true sexuality, if caught on tape having gay sex; he would claim his evil twin was gay and not him. 
                                
His voting record is what is to be expected from a man desperate to stay in the closet. His long anti-gay record of votes shows Senator Craig using homophobia as a cloak to protect his true secrets. He voted for the idiotic Federal Marriage Amendment, said that Idaho should put anti-gay marriage amendment in their constitution, and voted against protecting gays from hate crimes. His behavior can be likened to how some Jews in the German concentration camps who would turn in fellow Jews to the Nazis in order for safety. His behavior after the arrest shows how a smart, intelligent man could act so foolishly. He said yesterday that he never told his wife, family, and even his own lawyer about what happened with the bathroom arrest, shows that he actual thought the arrest of a senior senator would just go away. He also showed how he could not be a heterosexual who would have addressed the issue immediately, plead not guilty, and would have laughed the whole thing off. Senator Craig has helped create an America that stills struggles with homophobia, now he can see how hard he’s made it for his fellow homosexuals.

Apparently, I missed the memo that eliminated all dissent in our party. God forbid that a Senator gets his opinions from the ground in Iraq as opposed to the RNC website. The distinguished Senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner, has incurred the wrath of the extreme right-wing of our party, for whom anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is a RINO. Senator Warner made a legitimate proposal after visiting Iraq on a bi-partisan fact finding mission, saying that a small removal of troops would signify the American military presence’s time in the country was not unlimited. He later added fuel to the fire by saying that he would consider all possibilities to solving the enigma that has become Iraq. The surge in Iraq is working due to the hard work of our troops, but Senator Warner rightly focuses pressure on the failure of the Iraqi government to get the smallest of tasks done. For this, numerous conservatives including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have gone on the mission of destroying this well respected man calling him a “fool” and saying he should not have Republican support in his upcoming possible re-election. Just of note Warner won 82.6% of the vote in his last election and that Virginia is a state so red, that a man as dim as George Allen was almost re-elected to the Senate last year.
                         
Senator Warner's career shows that he is a man of deep honor and love of his country. During World War II he enlisted as soon as he could, before the age of 18, into the US Navy eager to do his duty. Soon after his service he went to law school, only to enroll in the Marine Corps at the start of the Korean War, where he achieved the rank of Captain. While in private practice, he was asked by President Nixon to be Secretary of the Navy. He then became a Senator for Virginia where he has served since 1979 during which time he became Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Warner will most likely retire next year giving rare honest authority to his view, free of political cravenness. There are few people as qualified as Senator Warner to offer an opinion with such military service, patriotism, and political experience to back it up. For the record, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham served a total of 0 days in the military. That does not mean they do not have the right to an opinion (I myself am a civilian) nor questions the legitimacy of their arguments, but I was raised with a deep respect for everyone who puts on the uniform something that seems lacking by these pontificating pundits.

Never before have I agreed with a book's general premise and despised it's execution more than with Bias, a book by Bernard Goldberg. It may very well be one of the worst books ever written with so many good points. When asking whether or not the mainstream media has a liberal tilt, almost all conservatives would scream, never mind say, "Yes". Yet their argument deserves better treatment it receives from author. Mr. Goldberg, a former CBS reporter wrote an op-ed, talking about how the media has a liberal bias. The uproar that ensued is told in the book, yet one cannot escape the feeling that the gravity of the event is of an inflated perspective. There is a very good saying "Anyone over forty should be banned from quoting "The Godfather"." It's advice sadly not used. Dan Rather instead of being the "don" is the "Dan"...how clever. But wait, his treatment was so bad by CBS, he says "forget the gambinos, and the gallos- forget the Sopranos- this was the stuff of the Corleones." When not using his favorite movie as an allegory to his life, he swears up a storm where the f-word gets used more than in an episode of "The Sopranos", I couldn't resist. All the while, Mr. Goldberg talks about a return of family values and morality on television. 
                                            
While the book sorely lacks in content, it's narrative voice is about as graceful as a child's first violin lesson. His content style is so weak that after using a quote from a liberal member of the media, he expounds on it for three to four pages using cliché charactertures and inconclusive responses. He stomps on any ethical rules reporters might have such as quoting someone who says they do not want to be quoted. Not only that but you get the whole idea, that what happens in a company should stay in the company. Can you imagine a trusted co-worker telling the whole world the worse thing you said about your boss? Apparently using Mr. Goldberg's logic, a private conversation is "on the record" and good material. And he wonders why he is disliked. I was also surprised about how poorly edited the book was, never mine the lack of cutting, but grammar mistakes were common. Bias is not a large book, only 214 original pages, yet somehow the author cannot make a huge topic (liberal media) fit. His style is all about stretching the conversation without providing any serious substance. At one point he writes an entire chapter of the return of family values. Readers call smell filler faster than a dead skunk, a lesson hopefully learned by Mr. Goldberg. There is a real liberal media bias but a book like "Bias" does nothing but preach to the choir instead of start a dialogue we all should be having. For that * out of ****.

If one good thing could come from watching the Democratic debate on Sunday, it was clearly realizing we have to scrap how we do debates in America. There are of course multiple debates, roughly one per week, due to our 24/7 media addiction. Every channel feels they must have multiple debates that ask all the same questions in only a slight variation. There was a lot of anger over the LOGO/HRC debate, but it terms of style alone, it was superior and should be the mold by which we form all future debates. Taking one subject and talking about that for ninety minutes as opposed to thirty-second sound bites muffled only by the moderator's interruptions is a needed change. Wouldn't it be great to hear about the how the candidates will handle Iraq in detail? That would challenge the candidates to provide real substance instead of cliché answers custom-made to their base. Turning now to my thoughts on ABC's This Week debate. 
                                     
The questions were of course the standard one's heard multiple times before but surprisingly badly answer from a number of candidates. Hillary Clinton was polished and refined. Nothing remarkable. Barack Obama acted like a lost puppy who wanted to be loved because as a State Senator he did not support the Iraq War. John Edwards proved unable to distinguish himself from Clinton. Mr. Edwards in my opinion is the only Democrat not beatable. If he gets the nomination he will be our next President. He is far too likable and protected from any personal criticism due to the family turmoil in his life. I have said time and time again that if it had been Edwards/Kerry instead of Kerry/Edwards, George W. Bush would have been a one-term president. Joe Biden, who will never jump from second tier, proved to be the big winner of the day. His answers were different yet not Gravel/Kucinich crazy. He was funny, able to poke fun at himself, and came off well.

Christopher Dodd did acceptable, but his time is up and needs to drop out. The only white male with a chance at the nomination is John Edwards and Dodd needs to realize it. Bill Richardson apparently didn't know he was running for President, because every time he was asked a question it took him a minute to understand it, let alone answer it. Mike Gravel was pathetically laughable, at one point answering an education question with "What does it matter, when we have a president who's going to nuke everything!" Dennis Kucinich looked like a deranged umpa lumpa who escaped from Willy Wonka’s candy factory.

Winner: Joe Biden
Honorable Mention: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards
Didn't Ruin Themselves: Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd
Really Bad: Bill Richardson
Needs Medication Immediately: Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich

The best things in life happen by accident. So when I was searching for an article by Matt Barber "A Que*r Topic For Debate" in yet another attempt to try to understand homophobia (know thy enemy), I just couldn't find it. It wasn't archived normally and Mr. Barber isn't a regular columnist so it seemed it was going to be lost. Then I saw the Townhall archive search and typed in the title "a que*r topic for debate". What popped up? "One of the words you are searching for has been deemed offensive". (When I tried posting without the * my post was rejected). I couldn't ask for more. The word was obviously "que*r". How on earth, could Townhall publish something, presumably pay for, a piece reeking of nasty bigotry and then be so embarrassed to bring it up? When discussing certain issues, there must be a line of civility, something that is severely lacking in the anti-gay movement. Worse, there is an intellectual dishonesty exhibited by Mr. Barber, such as when pictures of gay pride parades are used to accompany articles that have nothing to do with gay pride parades.
                                                    
You will also notice the distraction techniques such as linking gays to pedophilia. Not to mention the fact that the articles and posts are fundamentally weak at their core. Almost all would disappear without quoting the Bible, proving that pure twisted theology is the foundation of their opinions. The war for equal gay rights will be won. The youth of this country support it, including a huge majority of young Republican Christians. Townhall however deemed the words faggots and perverts to be inoffensive, an odd contradiction that needs to be adressed.  When I hear those words and them being thrown at the gay friends I have in my life, it makes me sick at how people can be so mean and filled with evil hatred. Townhall will look back at it publishing the likes of Mr. Barber and Mr. Kevin McCullough with shame. Polls and the past, tells us that bigotry dries up fast and the river of intolerance has a finite time left, hopefully Townhall will not prolong it's existence.

Here in the Mitten State, almost everyone, regardless of his or her political affiliation has an aversion to the new global economy, particularly the strong Asian market. Michigan strong industrial history and nostalgic memories have become our state's only weapons against the business reality of the day. So while the economic impact of Asian manufacturing is well known here, the safety of their products has now become the forefront issue with this week's Mattel recall. Historically, Michigan manufacturing focused on cars but was diverse like the rest of the mid-west and created many products that soon went to China. The second Chinese recall this month due to lead paint, is the disturbing new situation we, as American consumers, have created. Mattel, after waiting four days to acknowledge the dire problem, finally told parents the toys their children were playing with could kill them. The President of Mattel did the talk-show rounds, as that is regarded as the new public act of contrition, assuring the problem will be solved without taking responsibility for it's creation. 
                                          
We have to realize that the President of Mattel's words were nothing more than empty PR and this will happen again. He, as head of his company, knew the lack of safety testing that existed in his company. He knew the reality of the Asian market when he choose to move manufacturing there. He also created the huge economic pressure on the Chinese manufacturer to lower costs to raise profit margins. Now certainly he didn't mix the batch of lead paint himself, but by moving manufacturing to China without proper supervision and testing he is absolutely responsible. We as American consumers have done ourselves a disservice though by choosing lower prices, which led to lower standards. A mother on ABC's "Nightline" said, "You don't expect this sort of thing from an American toy". You may buy it in America, but the only American part about it, are the labels in English. It may not feel good to say, but it's even worse to ignore as shown this week.

Why vote for a candidate you don't agree with? After all a politician is meant to display the views of his constituents and you as a constituent, presumably, have a view. So I am asked why I support John McCain, because I am a proponent of gay rights and a moderate on abortion? The answer is easy, McCain is the most honest, trust worthy, down right good man in politics today, if not in all in America. His character is more important than his voting record to me. On the War on Terror, Senator McCain has been a constant supporter of the War in Iraq; he acknowledges the consequences of failure and is unwilling to allow them. He has done so, sacraficing his poll numbers and popularity. His energy policy is one of the best I've heard. He has been the only Republican to support nuclear power, something we need so bad in this country if we are ever going to stop relying of foreign oil. What really has hurt him though is his fighting for strong immigration reform. Those who would like to deport all illegal aliens, ignore the political reality of the day, something McCain is unwilling to do.   
                                      
 For conservative Republicans their aversion to the senior senator from Arizona is absolutely peculiar. He is personally popular and would most likely win the election, a hard task considering the current political climate. In doing so he would nominate the next Supreme Court justice. That vote would overturn Roe Vs. Wade (a move I support). John McCain, as of today, will most likely not be our next president, however and his character is the culprit. Perhaps a man of McCain caliber cannot be President. But I am reminded of a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. "Vanity asks the question is it Popular? Conscience asks the question Is it Right?” Vanity is more than represented by both sides in the 2008 race; Conscience has a lone supporter in John McCain. A sad political reality, but not an unchangeable one.

Want a solution for the out of control spending done in Washington? You may not like the answer but it is a simple one, fund abortions. Funding abortions for poor women (only if they choose) is a step to lower costs. From the purely fiscal standpoint, the average abortion costs $350-$750. Now common sense leads to the question “If you can’t find $500 for an abortion, how on earth are you going to able to pay for a child?” The answer is they don’t. The government (taxpayer) does. The amount it will cost to send a child to public school cost the taxpayers, $500,000 per child. The budget for the food stamp program, which primarily helps poor families, is $59.3 billion dollars. The TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) budget is $16.5 billion dollars. Put in the billions upon billions in health care costs and it makes no fiscal sense, whatsoever, to not fund abortions for poor women.

As a separate matter some will say, why should my tax money go to fund something that I, and my religion do not agree with? There are religions which prohibit members from getting organ donations, yet the country continues to fund organ transplants. The 1st Amendment clearly states "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As long as abortion is a constitutional right as it is now, to end a pregnancy during the first trimester, we must respect and extend those rights to poor women. The government must legally look at abortion as any other medical procedure. More importantly it cannot afford, financially, not to. The fiscal benefits are absolutely clear and demand attention. We have to acknowledge that you cannot be a fiscal conservative and also be against tax funded abortions.

ABC's "This Week" debate was remarkable for only one thing, how much the Republicans failed to make impression, good or otherwise. That may be the problem with the shear number of these "debates"; it may be hard to keep up the energy to answer mundane, repetitive, questions. Only two candidates made a positive impression and sadly one of them was Mitt Romney. Romney is quick-witted and seemed passionate. As always I have a problem, with what John McCain nailed as "election year conversions". With Mitt Romney, I'm noticed a viable candidate who will do anything to win, what that says about him is a different matter. The other surprise winner was Mike Huckabee, who was funny, smart, and downright fantastic. I'm not a Huckabee supporter but with his constant style he is the dark horse to beat in the race to join the top-tier.
                                                                                   
John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, my two favorites, did decent but lacked any energy whatsoever. That needs to change, we saw the Iowa momentum carry John Kerry to the nomination, and we cannot allow that to happen with Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. The rest were a complete lost; Tommy Thompson is by far the most pompous man on stage. His inflated ego is not a good combination for his pathetic poll numbers. Sam Brownback came across like an evil Care Bear; he seems cuddly at first but can't wait to stab anyone in the back. Ron Paul was fun and seems to be the only one there to actually debate, but he'll never gain any ground. Duncan Hunter failed to give me an impression of him whatsoever. Finally Tom Tancredo stuttered and shook the whole time. He showed why he did not belong at all on the debate stage. At one point he actually said he had no plan to fix education and health care, but at least he'd get rid of the Mexicans and that was all that was important. Somehow you get the idea that before he'd get rid of illegal immigrants he'd get distracted by a shiny piece of aluminum foil.

Back in 2004, my high school used the students as actual propaganda to pass a 30-year mileage for $300 million, yes a $300 million mileage, to build a new high school. It was a mixture suburban-rural community that is being hit hard by the sinking Michigan economy. In the mid 90s, multiple mileages passed to expand the high school including a beautiful auditorium and only a few million was needed to repair the school. Yet the school officials thirsted for more and more. All students were told that they needed to support the mileage and get their parents to as well. Students went to mandatory information meetings, constant lectures of teachers during class time, and made to give pro-mileage papers to their parents.
                                         
It was one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed. My little sister came home and said that she had been told that if we didn't vote yes, we didn't care about her education. When we explained both sides to her, she soon got angry about being used. Staff members, who disagreed, said so only in private, personal conversations out of fear. Thanfully the mileage failed by a landslide; as parent after parent realized they couldn't possible afford it, to which the superintendent said "If I could, I'd put it on a ballot for tomorrow." Such respect for the voters.

Kevin McCullough, a recently acquired taste to say the least, pointed out a very serious problem. The Democrats have chosen to participate in a LOGO debate. LOGO being a channel meant primarily for a homosexual audience. He and I have very different takes on the problem itself, however. Mr. McCullough was up in arms over the fact that Democrats were "pandering to perverts"...charming. I was very angry how LOGO could not invite Republicans until I found out that the candidates chose not to participate, a move that if repeated could kill our party. The Republicans will be having a debate on PBS soon to address the black community which at last count voted 8% Republican. How much did the gay community vote Republican? 24%, repeatedly every election since 1996, three times more than the black community. Which begs the question, why ignore (forget policy) such a powerful group? 
                                              
The answer is of course politics, with personalities such as Mr. McCullough, apparently frightened that an extremely low-rated cable channel could tear apart the moral fabric of America. A lot was made of the fact that the Democrat's boycott of the FOX News debate, which was of course a move lacking in any intelligence whatsoever. The ratings are clear that FOX News is the undeniable victor of cable news, who the Democrats ignore at their political peril. That doesn't excuse the Republicans absence in the LOGO debate however. With repeated moves like this to calm the McCulloughs out there, they risk losing the youth and future of the GOP, who have consistently shown that the party of Falwell-Buchanan is dying and the party which was meant to protect individual rights will return.

Getting to know Barack Obama is like eating a wedding cake. At first it looks nice, and at first bite taste good to. After the second bite you start to notice how sugary sweet it is. After the third you realize that it's kind of sickly sweet it is and how it's full of empty calories. By the time you're offered a second slice, you ready to gag. Yet the media has a sweet tooth for the junior senator for Illinois, and are quick to push him on the American people. From the start of his pathetically easy election to the U.S. Senate he was the political world's equivalent of Paris Hilton. 
                                
He has been put on every publication especially the "mainstream" newsweekly Newsweek. He first cover was "Seeing Purple" as if token words of moderation and one of the most liberal voting records were going to bridge the Red-Blue divide. "The Race Is On" he had to share his space with with Hillary Clinton, because we Republicans have no one worthy of even being considered a viable candidate. Just a week ago, he again graced the cover of Newsweek this time how Barack Obama is changing racial assumptions of "being black and white". Wait... Barack Obama is black?