Kanye West Blows Lid off MTV Video Music Awards

Rapper Kanye West fired a barrage at the MTV Video Music Awards after watching Britney Spears open the show with a wobbly, unprepared performance to a bewildered audience. West accused the multinational conglomerate of artist exploitation.

"Man, they were just trying to get ratings," West declared. "They knew she wasn't ready and they exploited her. They exploited her, they played me and I really don't mess with MTV."

West showed off his famous college-level intelligence by adeptly putting his thumb on something all of us have been thinking all these years: that the VMA awards are an over-hyped, ratings-focused, sham which cares little about the music. You just can't get anything past that guy.

"What? He was serious?" an anonymous MTV spokesman replied. "Honestly, we thought that was part of his act or something. You know, the angry rapper bit. Was anyone not aware that we were exploiting our artists? I'm stunned this even needs to be mentioned. This is the entertainment industry. We treat the talent like circus animals. They even sign a waiver saying they accept being exploited. The trade-offs are far too great. Would anyone give a shit about Mrs. Spears or Mr. West if we weren't prostituting their sex appeal and skills?"

West seemed surprised and disturbed by his newfound insight. "Hell, now that I think of it, maybe even the Grammys are just hype and bullshit," He mused.

"You may not know this," West went on, "but the music industry really doesn't care about artists. All they want is another album. There, I've said it. Oh, sure, it all looks like sugar plums and moon pies on the outside, but it can be a cold, heartless business, viewing artists as a commodity and keeping them complacent by a steady diet of drugs, sex, and attention. I know, I know. Once again I've shocked you."

"While I'm at it I'm going to also say that most, no, wait, all corporations are probably motivated by greed. You think big oil may be behind the lag in fuel efficiency standards in this country? Probably! You know what else? I'm going to drop a realm bomb here: those presidential candidates who say they feel your pain? They're just saying that, see, so you'll vote for them. Are you getting all this down?"

West, who threw a wide-ranging tantrum backstage after losing all five VMA categories he was nominated for, also lashed out at Justin Timberlake, Nelly, God, the Bill of Rights, Islamofascim, the Jewish lobby, fat free lard, gravity, and Billy Crystal.

"This was a real wake-up call for me," said West, wrapped in a dark gray mink coat on the unusually cold Las Vegas morning. "I've got to go sit in my gold plated hot tub and think long and hard about this. Perhaps I've been exploited, and perhaps I've been doing some exploiting of my own. You see? That's deep. But I've learned one thing: there's more to being a rapper than being completely establishment and freaking out over who wins what award and who opens on the main stage. It's not about that. No, it's not even about having a hot, young, sexy thing in my bed every night of the week. It's not about me, or my health, or my rocket car. It's about the goddamn music. Respect it."

How Not to Buy a House

Following up my wildly popular post on how to buy a house I give you how *not* to buy a house. This advice pertains to the average potential home buyer, not the super-rich or gambling addict.

5. Take everyone's advice at face value. It may seem shocking to learn but there is quite a bit of money to be made in real estate. Most of these riches will be financed by you. In every step in the process, from the real estate agent to the lender, someone has a vested interest in you spending as much of your money as possible. So, it's probably best if you take their advice with at least a grain of salt. The object of the game is to save as much of your money as possible while still moving into the house that meets your current and future needs.

4. Begin looking at homes before you've determined how much you can afford. When you do this you become emotionally invested in expensive properties and neighborhoods out of your price range. This is a rule I learned when selling cars. It's very hard for a buyer to backwards once he has put himself into a top quality product. At that point the human brain puts all its energy into acquiring the product, monthly payments and prudent planning be damned

3. Take out an adjustable rate mortgage with no idea how it works. Adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are loans which start off with a low rate and then adjust at some point in the future according to the market. How much they can adjust to and when they adjust is a matter of negotiation. It stands to reason that if interest rates are very low an ARM will probably only adjust upwards, thus increasing the monthly payments. As I've said before an ARM can be a decent vehicle. You can use it to your advantage by building up equity in your home faster and then selling it before the rates adjust upwards. This approach was much more feasible five years ago when interest rates were low, housing prices were trending upwards much too quickly, and everyone was high on life.

2. Buy more house than you can afford. I've heard this one go both ways. Some people want you to stretch as far as you can when buying a house because it is assumed that your income will increase over time and then you'll be sitting pretty in a really nice home. Well, you know what they say happens when you assume? You make yourself and others look like a damned fool (or something like that). I say it's better to be a little conservative. A house is not typically a great investment and the money you save each month can be used for upgrading and saving for a rainy day. It's much better to have a smaller, nicely kept house than a large, sparsely furnished one. The only reason to justify spending a little more is to get into a slightly better neighborhood.

1. Don't consider taxes, homeowners insurance, maintenance, utilities, or future uncertainty when buying a house. Your property taxes will greatly affect your monthly payments. Taxes of $2400 a year equals an extra $200 per month. Homeowners insurance can easily run $100 a month. Heating and cooling a large house can add up, another good reason to opt for a smaller home. And there will always be upkeep and maintenance. Plan on spending at least 1% of the price of your home per year on annual maintenance. Even if you don't spend it one year it will add up in time as you replace the furnace, the air conditioner, the roof, etc.

There is a lot of housing market anxiety out there, which the smart buyer can use as an advantage. Housing prices are dropping and many sellers are all but desperate to get out of those large housing boom homesteads. Buy low, sell high!*

*This article was written by a complete amateur, whose work will never appear on cnnmoney or the economist.

How to Buy a House

Buying a home is a complex but incredibly rewarding process. It is the single largest investment most people will ever make and as such a methodical approach is advised.

10. Determine how much house you can afford. Do this before you even begin looking at houses so you immediately eliminate those which you just can't afford. There's no sense in looking at that giant home with a pool if it is way out of your price range. Don't even tempt yourself or do any foolish justification. There are various on-line calculators, like this one at bankrate.com, to help you determine how much house you can afford. There are also many articles with advice on this subject. Don't forget to factor in taxes and home owners insurance.

9. Determine how long you will be living in the house. The average length of home ownership in the United States is seven years but maybe you plan on living in your next home for the rest of your life. Having a long-term plan will help you determine whether to use an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) or a fixed rate mortgage. ARMs are generally good if you plan on selling the house a few years after buying it since the interest rate starts off very low and you can build equity in your house faster. However, as the name states, the rate "adjusts" after a period of time. Five years ago, when housing prices were spiking and interest rates were low, an ARM was a feasible choice for a short-term home owner. Today it is less desirable but still helpful in some situations. A good, reputable mortgage lender can walk you through all of the options.

8. Determine what you want in a house. This ties in with how long you plan on living in the house. Maybe a fenced in yard is not important to you today but do you plan on having children running around outside down the line? Since you are spending a considerable sum of money on your house you might as well figure out what you'll want in it, today, and years from now. It's helpful to rank what you want in your home by desirability and complexity. Certain things are easier to add than others. For example, if you want a master bathroom you are probably better off finding a house with one in-place since putting one in can be very expensive.

7. Determine what type of neighborhood you want to live in. Again, this should line up with your long-term goals. Maybe the trendy inner city neighborhood is fun now, but is that where you want to be in five or ten years? Will quality of schools play a factor in the future? What about crime rate and commute time?

6. Should you use a buyer's agent? A buyer's agent is a real estate professional who works on your behalf during the purchase of a home. They can do everything from finding potential homes to setting up times to see the home to suggesting mortgage companies to work with. In my experience the most important function of the buyer's agent is negotiation and sage advice. So, consider your agent carefully. Will your agent be able to go to bat for you during the crucial negotiating process when you've found a house you like? I remember when I sold a condo in St. Louis and ran up against a buyer's agent who was extremely tenacious on behalf of the buyer. That person definitely got their money's worth out of their agent.

5. Begin looking at houses. If you've figured out how much house you can afford, what you really want in that house, and what type of neighborhood you want to live in, you have helped yourself out considerably when weeding through all the possible homes for sale. Now is the time to begin looking at houses. Of course you don't need your own agent to look at houses. Potential homes are easily found on the internet through any number of on-line listings like realtor.com. If you've found one that meets your criteria you can contact the listing agent and set up a time to view the house. Of course then you are dealing with the listing agent directly, rather than having a representative of your own, and for many people this is too stressful.

4. Consider which features of a house are unchangeable. The golden rule of real estate is this: location, location, location. It has been said that it is better to own the worst house on a nice block than the other way around. Of course some of this is a matter of taste. Along those lines consider carefully those things about the house and neighborhood which will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change. Consider the surrounding area: Are there high tension lines running over the back yard? Is the home in the shadow of a power plant? Is there a strip-club across the street? Then consider the house itself: will you need to do any major remodeling or repair? Is the siding falling off? Generally you want to work your way from the most expensive, complicated repairs down to the things which are easily fixed and see if there are any deal breakers.

3. Do not be afraid to look at a lot of houses to get a better idea of what you really want. When I bought my first home I started off looking at single family homes in St. Louis but eventually decided I wanted a condo instead. Putting in the time to look at extra homes is taxing but considering the huge financial investment you're about to make it is well worth it. Again, this is where a buyer's agent can complicate the process because it is *not* in their best interest to look at 100 houses while you decide. But, if you've done your homework (the initial steps) hopefully you'll have a good idea of exactly what you want.

3. If everything seems to line up according your criteria, congratulations! You've found a potential home. Now comes the stressful part: making an offer. Again, this is where an experienced buyer's agent can really pay off. I've seen some who have negotiated like sharks, saving their clients thousands of dollars. And others offer almost no advice or guidance and seem worried about losing a sale. Hopefully your agent will run some comparisons (comps) on recent home sales in the area to determine what offer you should make on the house. Always have your offer contingent on an inspection.

2. Have the home inspected! This may be the most important step of all and if at all possible use someone recommended by a friend. Don't use someone your agent has recommended. Try to find someone reputable who will do a comprehensive inspection, including, hopefully, a check for mold. It's of little value if all the inspector can tell you is that your water pressure is good. You could figure that out easily enough but what you can't determine, and hopefully the inspection will, is what serious flaws the house has. A good home inspection can save you thousands of dollars in the long run. You do not want to buy a home with foundation problems, termites, or mold issues. The inspection will be able to determine what repairs will be needed and you can factor those in to your negotiations.

1. Hopefully you've made a fair offer, had the home inspected, and negotiated any necessary repairs into that offer. Hopefully everyone is reasonable and it is accepted. It is definitely a buyer's market these days so a buyer can push a little harder than in the past. Try to close six to eight weeks out and lock your rates in through the bank unless there is a good chance they will go down before closing. I made the mistake of agreeing to close four months out and failed to negotiate the price of locking in rates that far out. Consequentially I did not lock my rates until two months later, and they had gone up. Remember, through the whole process, this is business. Every step requires careful planning and consideration and others may be there to give you advice but you are the one who will be signing the deal and responsible for the payoff month after month, and repairs and upkeep.

Craig's Collapse

"I am not gay," Larry Craig insisted during his police interview July 11, after being arrested at Minneapolis International Airport. Craig, a conservative Senator from Idaho, was accused of lewd conduct--namely, soliciting sex in a men's room at the airport--and plead guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct. How did a high profile public official caught in such an embarrassing position?

Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer at the airport on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in one of the men's public restrooms. Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and took a seat in a stall. Craig entered the bathroom a few minutes later. The police report then states that Craig looked through the crack of the stall at the officer, entered the stall next to the officer, placed his roller bag in front of the door, and tapped his foot, a soliciting signal. Then, Craig's foot touched the officer's and Craig swiped his hand along the stall divider. At that point the officer showed his identification. Craig got out of his stall and was arrested.

Craig disputes virtually every aspect of the police report, saying that his foot accidentally touched the officer's because he employs a wide stance while in the men's room so his slacks would not slide to the floor. As for running his hand under the stall divider, Craig said he was reaching for a piece of stray toilet paper. Craig is accusing the officer of entrapment.

I can sympathize with a man wanting to keep his expensive, Senate-level pants off a public bathroom floor, an area usually alarmingly filthy, but this is also why most men don't go reaching down for pieces of dropped toilet paper. So, I understand one part of Craig's excuse but not the other. Then, there's the freaky stall leering behavior. Craig was probably was indeed soliciting, but it's not much of a stretch to see how some of his actions could be misconstrued if one were motivated to catch a solicitor.

For example, Craig put his roller bag against the inside of the stall door, because, as Officer Karsnia suggested, "individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall." But really, where's the bag supposed to go? Behind the toilet? Off to the side? That's what he was arrested for? Improper roller bag placement and foot tapping? I find that to be more troubling than any other part of the story. Is his behavior odd? Yes. Is it disturbing? Yes. Is it a threat to airport security? Probably not. I can think of more than a few things I'd rather have police officers doing in an airport than sitting in stalls watching where men put their roller bags.

But what makes the story even more compelling is that Craig has a long history of legislating against gay rights, while for years stories have floated around about his less than straight sexual orientation. Even his use of men's rooms to solicit is nothing new. And then he goes and gets himself arrested...in a men's room! Assuming the reports are false, and he is indeed straight, then he is certainly guilty of some strange bathroom etiquette and horrible timing. But if he is gay, which seems obvious, then his life is a sad example of someone who has to live a lie and sneak into bathrooms to round up some satisfaction. Honestly, I could care less about his preference, what matters is his wife and family and whether or not he is deceiving them, himself, and his constituents.

So is the issue the soliciting? This is clearly not the problem because men do it everywhere, all the time. This behavior is enthusiastically represented by Republican Senator David Vitter who, because he is not gay, can take greater chances when scrounging for sex. Namely, by contacting the D.C. Madam herself. And, because Vitter is not gay, no one in the Republican party is asking for his resignation when his phone number turns up in odd places, like on the Madam's list. Craig's problem is inappropriate only because he may be gay, and, like other gay men, forced solicit it in such seedy places. Their procedure well known, they can be targeted and easily arrested. Are they plotting to blow up a plane? Are they selling drugs? No, they're trying to hook up.

Since the story broke, Larry Craig's support has virtually evaporated. Mitt Romney, whose campaign Craig once assisted, called his behavior "disgusting." Pressure is mounting for the Senator to step down. Those on the left are having a field day over the self-loathing Republican Senator who might be gay. But the saddest thing to me is a man whose life is collapsing, buried under a pile of self-deception. What if, like Ted Haggard, he is gay? Then, his entire life is a fabrication built on the lies he tells to himself and others. Then, his anti-gay votes in the Senate are to be viewed not only as hypocrisy but as a sad and severe case of self-hate. And, if Senator Craig is not gay, surely there are thousands in this country who do live under that duplicity because of worn out social constraints. Regardless, the version we have invented is, no doubt, the way many actually do live, and sometimes they are arrested for tapping their feet in men's rooms. I hope someday we can look back with astonishment that we ever even cared about someone's sexual orientation. But, for now, it is all that matters.

Mistakes by Any Other Name

Last week President Bush again made his case against withdrawing from Iraq, this time calling it analogous to America’s pull-out of Vietnam. Meanwhile we have been witness to a conspicuous administration evacuation of men trying to distance themselves from a White House that itself resembles a policy quagmire. Still the President puts on his game face and refuses to admit that his realm, both foreign and domestic, is a shambles due to the neoconservative credo that any admission of weakness only emboldens our enemies.

Unfortunately, such a strategy has very little grounding in realistic perception. Adhering to this core tenet helps explain why, for example, people (like Donald Rumsfeld) were allowed to languish while vital areas (like the war in Iraq) were slipping out of control. Indeed, Bush and Cheney and others, felt it was better policy to deny the truth that everyone else saw to be self evident while showing support for officials we all knew were in over their heads. When Rumsfeld finally did leave town Vice President Dick Cheney gushed at the farewell service, proclaiming him one of the greatest SecDefs in United States history. The rest of us watched on confused.

But even this was all part of the plan. The belief is that any acknowledgment of a prior mistake, or failure, only helps out those who are against us. One can also see how this thinking would lead to very little critical oversight, and an outright contempt for reasonable criticism and questioning. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this thinking could corrupt wartime operations. Neoconservatism's greatest product, Iraq, has been, for lack of a better term, a disaster. The situation has shown signs of improving over the past six months thanks to a new commander, General Patraeus, and a new strategy, to hold down Baghdad while buying the ineffective Iraqi government more time, but for five long years millions of Americans have overseen the war and deemed its execution a dreadful mess. They have watched as their tax dollars have vanished (sometimes literally, missing) somewhere in Iraq while the President voiced extreme optimism (declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq) and then stoicism (we will stay the course).

Back before the war started Americans were told that the oil revenues would pay for the entire operation. We were told that Iraq was an important threat to American security. We were told that once we sheered the top of the Iraqi power structure off that liberty and Democracy would rush in to fill the void. Just how that last part would occur no one could say because, well, we’d never done such a thing before. But to even ask such questions would be to break the first rule of neoconservativism, which may have been pulled from off a Hollywood script: show only strength and, if at all possible, some honor.

Americans didn’t really understand the full incompetence of the Bush administration until Hurricane Katrina shuffled it’s way up the Gulf of Mexico, landed at New Orleans as predicted, and flooded the city. The response was a microcosm of our Iraqi mess. We witnessed the bureaucratic nightmare of institutions stuffed with family friends trying to communicate with each other. Millions were stunned to watch as the vaunted Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Association were knocked off-guard and left all but completely ineffectual while thousands of homeland citizens were stranded and hundreds died. It was then that people started to ask critical questions of an administration that had put on such a powerful show for the Republic. The outcome was an overturning of the house and Senate in the 2006 November elections that allowed the Democrats to begin seriously investigating entrenched politburo officials.

Still Bush refuses to budge on Iraq, lest we embolden our enemies. A military withdrawal is out of the question yet what are we to make of the political withdrawal we are witnessing from the President’s administration? First there was Rumsfeld, a day after the 2006 elections, followed by a score of other, lesser cabinet members. Then Bush’s key advisor, Karl Rove, stepped down, like a fatigued football coach, announcing he wanted to spend more time with his family. And now, barely a week later, embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has announced his sudden resignation.

Both Rove and Gonzalez are very powerful members of the administration (Gonzalez, in theory, is supposed to be independent) whom Bush continually championed while the Democrats laid siege to and lobbed projectiles against administration walls. Those walls now appear to be crumbling. A true believer to the end, Bush “reluctantly” accepted Gonzales resignation referring to him affectionately as “Al.” And why not? The two men have been through a lot since then Texas Governor Bush plucked Al Gonzalez out of a Houston law firm and made him his legal advisor. Gonzalez gave insufficient counsel and did not second-guess convictions and failed appeals while the state of Texas executed more prisoners during his term than any other state. But more important than competency was his loyalty. He was rewarded by being appointed Texas’s Secretary of State and then to the state Supreme Court. But it was as President Bush’s White House counsel that Gonzalez showed his usefulness by trying to limit The Freedom of Information Act, and helping the United States circumvent the “quaint” Geneva Convention and detain and torture prisoners without cause in camps around the world, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He also authored the Presidential Order that authorized military tribunals to try terror suspects. As to whether or not Gonzalez was involved in the firing of nine US Attorneys, perhaps we will never know, thanks in no small part to his spotty memory before a Senate panel. Of this man Bush said, “It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person, like Alberto Gonzales, is impeded from doing important work, because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.”

One can only guess what “important work” remained for Al Gonzalez but two things are known. One, the Justice Department is another Bush administration victim, which makes quite a body count for a President who never admits a mistake. And two, the next Attorney General will have a much higher hill to climb to confirmation now that he or she has to go through the Democrats. No doubt some might consider it too audacious to expect the next Attorney General of the United States wont be a Bush family friend.

Are We Having Fun Yet?

When I was married I was miserable because I thought I wasn’t having any fun. After my divorced I was shocked to learn no one else was having any fun either. I re-entered the dating scene with all the enthusiasm of a high school graduate but it quickly evaporated as I discovered that all those people I thought were having fun really had no idea what they were doing. Once again, I'd been had.

I place part of the blame on “Sex and the City” syndrome. One of the few girls I actually liked when I was dating once broke out He’s Just Not That Into You, the best selling book by two writers of the ubiquitous HBO show, which, as it turned out, was sort of her field guide for dating. I was humiliated when she referenced the book to criticize me. Imagine that! Someone taking real life cues from two people whose credentials were forged in a fictional universe. To her it was simply a matter of acting like a successful woman on TV, and consulting the book if there were any questions. Welcome to the single life.

All you really want when dating is for the other person to be real. You just want to know: do you like me or not? Not, would this make a good episode on TV? You want to know: is this working or not? Please don’t consult the manual. Our society works in vapid the way China dabbles with led paint. Everyone just seems to be doing their best impression of someone who is having fun, or in-charge, or successful, no one really knows what they're doing and most people are having no fun. They wake up Saturday mornings hungover, dust themselves off, and return to their dreams of being a lawyer, or crime scene analyst, just like on TV.

I just read an essay outlining 25 steps to boost your self-confidence. Here, again, is another symptom. How can we be the same species that mastered fire, and ventured from caves to kill mastodons with crude weapons made from sticks and stones, and be so plagued with self-confidence issues? When did we fall into this ridiculous cycle of simply doing what we see everyone else doing on TV or consulting someone else’s ideas on how we should run our lives? Ten thousand years ago we just had to do it, or parish. There was no room for people who couldn't discover their motivation. Today people think self-confidence can be conjured up by consulting a few web pages.

You see: no one is having any fun, really. "Fun" was trademarked, homogenized, and is now re-heated to the consumer. On TV people who drink beer look like they're always having fun, right? So, in real life it's a blast to get hammered every weekend, right? I know a lot of married people who look longingly at the single life because it seems so interesting and sexy. Well, sometimes it is, but most of the time it’s just a bunch of bullshit. Trust me. For every one person you meet that really lights your fire, there are hundreds who look like they’ve wandered onto the set of “Sex and the City” and are just killing time.

Clubbing, drinking, drugs, and large sunglasses, these are the signs of someone who is really having no fun but is trying desperately to hide it. But who knows, maybe if all the props are in place everything will come together. It’s one big competition out there to see who can outdo everyone else. It’s really a lot like high school. And maybe that’s why, when they’re not pretending to have fun, so many people are confused, powerless, miserable and broken and empty. Which drives them to pretend even more.

I was stunned to learn how much effort it is to keep up appearances like that. And the appearances on top of appearances. The money invested in designer clothes, and hair products. It's an entire fake lifestyle on top of a lifestyle. No wonder corporations continue to report record profits. They reach both the conformists and the non-conformists. Everyone is trying desperately to be like the next guy, who is having no fun, or to not be like the next guy, who is having no fun. When does it end?

I’m 31, and it may be time to check-out. I have a decent job and I'm a responsible adult and that actually makes me happy. I'm the guy that owns a house in the suburbs, which my friends see as an example of my pitiful existence. They seem stunned that I have no interest in hanging out at a club, or living upstairs from a martini bar, or going to film school. I've essentially vanished. If you did happen to notice me on the street you might laugh. I'm the guy who no longer matches his belt with his shoes. Being free is the most fun I've ever had.

Bridges, and the Funny Thing About Bad Goverment

President Bush dismissed today raising the federal gas tax to repair the nation's bridges citing fiscal responsibility.

"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

This comes a week after the highway 35W bridge collapsed in downtown Minneapolis during rush hour killing five people, at least eight are still missing. As a resident of the Twin Cities, and one who traverses its bridges frequently, this event has been, perhaps, more personal than to our nation's leaders. One does not expect a major bridge, in a major city, to collapse during rush hour. It's not only stunning but obviously unacceptable.

What is also stunning is that the press has quickly uncovered previous inspections of that bridge deeming it structurally unsound. Thus I am not sure which element I find more disconcerting: the collapse of the bridge, or the wealth of information on-hand warning us that such a thing could occur and was basically ignored. Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty twice vetoed compressive transportation bills, but more on that in a moment.

Since the collapse Pawlenty has been quick to point out there are 70,000 bridges across the country that are in similar condition. His point serves two purposes. One, to illustrate the dire condition of our nation's infrastructure while at the same time assuaging fears many people have about their own bridges. After 69,999 of these unsound bridges are still standing.

But how many of these bridges are in major cities? How many carry over 100,000 cars a day as the 35W bridge in Minneapolis did? Shouldn't some priority have been given to a major bridge when it is found to be structurally unsound? Our problem is not lack of information but leaders who lack the wisdom and judgment to make the right decision with the information they have. We now know that the 35W bridge inspections had been done and their findings turned out to be an accurate harbinger of the disaster. Still, our leaders choose to take their chances. That bridge, and the pages of findings about its deficiencies, is a symbol of how we govern these days. It is now a terrible tragedy; unfortunately, and unnecessarily, a recovery zone.

There's a funny thing about conservativism, which stokes a strong American distrust for government: operations which are conducted are done so poorly that one finds the distrust reasonable. When those operations are found to be woefully inefficient, comities are formed to plumb the depths of their incompetence, but nothing changes. Amazingly, the people usually know what needs to be done without the availability of official reports. They go to their executive leaders and ask to be taxed to create the funds needed for remedy and they are turned away in the name of fiscal responsibility. Thus bad government, trying to do things for nothing, creates disasters, which fosters more mistrust in the government. In this area President Bush, and Gov. Pawlenty have done a magnificent job.

In early 2006 the Minnesota legislature produced a transportation bill which was being pushed unilaterally from both sides, and notably by business leaders, a crowd not usually anxious for more taxes, who affirmed the poor condition of our state's infrastructure. Gov. Pawlenty swiftly and dramatically vetoed the bill while musing aloud, "How dumb can they be?" The people resurrected the bill as an amendment which was voted on, and rejected, in the 2006 elections. By November 2006 enough people had seen enough inefficiency in government to allow the no-tax, something-for-nothing crowd to have its day and in the end we are left with what we (don't) pay for. Since the 35W bridge collapse Pawlenty, to his credit, says he could accept a higher gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure upgrades. A changed man, perhaps, we will see if he has discovered the leadership needed to govern above people's base fears.

Fred Thompson Article Featured on Helium.com

One of my previous articles is now being featured on the front page of Helium. Helium is a web page for opinionated writers (how could I resist?) and the article features my thoughts on Fred Thompson. It was written about four months ago so it's a little dated but the gist of it continues to ring true in my opinion. Fred Thompson, who has not even declared his candidacy, is currently ahead of John McCain and Mitt Romney and only trails Rudy G.

Go check out Helium for some good writing (and me!).

And You Shall Know the Truth

"I want to know the truth," President Bush once said concerning the Valerie Plame affair. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." And today, the culmination of over three years of truth-finding ended when Bush commuted Lewis Libby's conviction. This means Judith Miller will spend more time in jail for honoring her sources than the person who obstructed justice and perjured himself in the investigation.

The pathetic move by the president does not surprise anyone. I don't find the move disturbing as much as the all the presidential rhetoric used at the outset, and the tactics used in the interim. The sense of outrage is palpable across the country. While the rest of us go to work, pay our taxes, and keep the country running, the president and his man gallivant around as war leaders while keeping the inner workings of their organization hidden behind a wall of obfuscation. To say nothing of accountability, the American people rarely even get an explanation for their government's incredibly inept results.

"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive," Bush said in a statement. "Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

This "excessive" prison sentence was handed down by a Republican appointed judge, after a three year, exhaustive investigation started by John Ashcroft, and prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald who was appointed by Ashcroft's office. The case went through so many conservative hands it is hard to imagine any verdict reached as "excessive." And, in what seems to be a fitting metaphor for the last six years, the truth found in that long investigation is immediately discarded by the Bush administration, which opted instead to honor loyalty. The mantra apparently is that this administration will claim deal with the truth inasmuch as the search for truth can be coerced for political gain. Any unfortunate findings can be quickly erased with the stroke of a pen--whether they are global warming facts, or members of the administration convicted of a felony.

No, Libby was no the leak. No, he was not the person the prosecution was originally looking for. Conservative pundits latched onto this and called the whole thing a witch-hunt. Which is to say it is just unfair to go after anyone who obstructs justice and/or commits perjury if the original trial was not about them. This notion stems from the party who claims to know something about family values.

Bush vowed to "take care" of the person involved in the leak. Both Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been closely linked in the case yet Bush has shown no interest to expedite any investigation in those key members of the administration. Libby took the hit instead and is spared by the president. But, really, how much can expect from a man void of a realistic, cohesive long view? I do not find it surprising at all that today is the four year anniversary of another great Bush bloviation: bring 'em on. Bush once laid down the gauntlet with those choice words; and, as it turns out, everyone was ready for the challenge except the White House.

Bush was once heralded as a man of integrity. A decisive war-time president. A straight talking Texan. We now know none of those things are true. Like Libby, perhaps, we too have been set free. We now know the truth that Bush once claimed to seek. The Libby issue effectively blows away any hint of the former caricature that was the strong, post-9/11 president. All bad things can be blamed on partisan politics and witch-hunts but did such things shrink Bush? Or was it his own, indescribable contempt? Some horrors need no embellishment.

The Most Powerful Man in America

Most Americans have no idea who Anthony Kennedy is, although he may now be the most powerful man in the country. Thanks to a timely re-staffing of the Supreme Court, most notably the replacing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, Justice Kennedy has become the pivotal swing vote on the bench. As such he is the new king maker, the one who decides who lives and who dies. Now might be time to get familiar with him.

Justice Kennedy was born in 1936 in Sacramento, California. He graduated from Harvard Law School 1961. A life long Republican, he was nominated by President Reagan in 1987 after Robert Bork was found to be too conservative. Kennedy was confirmed unanimously and has since shown a mix of conservative and libertarian philosophies while on the Supreme Court. He is known for being strong on gay rights, but has joined with the court favoring capital punishment, limiting abortion rights, and invalidating affirmative action programs.

Recently, Kennedy has drawn considerable attention from the left for siding with the four more conservative Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) as the key vote in 5-4 decisions. But he has also infuriated the right for his left-leaning votes over the years. Most notably he affirmed the precedent set by Roe v Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs Casey. In 2003 James Dobson, director of the evangelical Focus on the Family, once called Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America."

In light of Kennedy's recent rulings many on the left would now make the same claim. Kennedy recently cast the deciding vote against the so-called "partial birth abortion" procedure, voted against a death row inmate seeking appeal, voted against a free speech issue involving a high school student, and voted in-favor of allowing more corporate money into campaign finance. Today, in another 5 to 4 vote, Kennedy came down against school plans for greater racial diversity.

Altogether Kennedy has joined the conservative side of the court more times than not including the famous Bush v Gore case of 2000, and on affirmative action rulings, and limiting congressional power. He has also sided with the liberal Justices on numerous civil rights cases including Lawrence v Texas which struck down the criminal prohibition of "homosexual sodomy" in Texas, Roper v Simons which made it illegal to impose capital punishment on minors, Gonzalez v Oregon which limited the government's ability to interfere with a state's decision for assisted suicide, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which blocked the governments use of military tribunals for detainees.

Kennedy is probably most notorious for citing international law in his decisions, a practice that gives many liberals hope considering most Democratic countries have more progressive liberties than the United States. For example, Kennedy used international law when reaching his decision in the Lawrence case and wrote, "Authoritative in all countries that were members of the Council of Europe the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers [a previous Supreme Court precedent] that the claim put forward was insubstantial to our Western civilization."

But a penchant for international citation may be cold comfort to many progressives who understand fully that Kennedy was nominated by a conservative president and has largely played according to predictions, joining the right-wing of the court in a substantial number of cases. His power has been enhanced even more since the 2004 elections and the re-tooling of the Court. As the all-important sing vote he is to the right of where Justice O'Connor once stood.