Principle vs. Politics in El Paso County, Colorado

I've always been one to stand on principle rather than politics, which is why I'm taking a very dim view of what's shaping up in El Paso county, CO at the moment.

In the Colorado House of Representatives, the state is mulling adopting Health Insurance Exchanges in anticipation of the arrival of Obamacare later in the year.

Republican Majority Leader Amy Stephens is campaigning hard for the GOP majority to pass this measure; but the lengths she's gone to have violated some fundamental democratic principles.

Realizing that there was considerable opposition to the bill amongst Republicans in the state (many of whom consider it a pre-emptive adoption of so-called Obamacare) Representative Stephens aggressively tried to silence dissent with resolutions that forced party members to "toe the line" despite their opposition.

One such example is in El Paso County – where Stephen's supporters introduced a last-minute amendment to an Executive Committee Meeting agenda that forbid party officers from "publicly opposing" elected Republicans – and, more significantly, their policies.

Violations of this resolution included posting on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and online forums – or even arguing against an elected representative's policies in front of a "large audience" or as part of a "large group."

This insidious little resolution essentially forces all officials in the El Paso Country GOP to obediently, unquestioningly and blindly support anything and everything elected Republicans push for; even if it flies in the face of every political principle they have.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly how many members of the El Paso Country GOP feel about Representative Stephen's bill to introduce health insurance exchanges – what's become known as so-called "AmyCare"

Now, I personally support Stephen's measure (after all, health insurance exchanges were originally a Republican invention and even touted as party policy until a few years ago) but I don't support the way Stephens has gone about trying to implement it.

This is one of those matters in which I stand on principle rather than politics – and my principles reject Representative Stephen's dictatorial directive.

This kind of political leadership smacks of everything I detest about European politics (and the way the Democratic party is run.) Amongst such parties, it seems like a "political elite" make the decisions because the rest of the party, and the voters as a whole, can't be trusted with such "important decisions."

It seems Representative Stephens, and the sycophants who enable her, share that disdain for democracy. So much is clear from her dismissal of those who opposed AmyCare: She called them nothing but a few "libertarians and anarchists."

But they're not anarchists, and they're certainly not few in number. In fact, Stephens is pushing an agenda that is clearly in opposition to the wishes of a significant number of her constituents.

But more worrying than Representative Stephen's behavior is that fact that it might only be the tip of the iceberg. An anonymous email sent by a mysterious "Henri Ducard" (the name of the man who trained Batman in the art of crime fighting) revealed that corruption and abuse ran much deeper through El Paso's Republican party than Amy Stephen's fascist resolutions.

Ducard accused the chairman of the El Paso Republicans, Eli Bremer, of organizing closed-door fundraisers, giving friends and cronies well-paid positions in the party and even selling access to GOP celebrities in exchange for power and influence. It seems like the political elite of the El Paso County GOP are trying to turn it into a microcosm of the worst of Washington's political excess.

The problem is that the Republicans they've disenfranchised - the so-called "libertarians and anarchists" - aren't going to let this situation continue for much longer. As one wise pundit said, this situation is a battle for the "heart and soul" of the GOP.

Is it a battle they can win? And can they do so in time for the 2012 elections?

Who picks up the cost of the Gulf Oil Spill?

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."

With that heartfelt apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward, Republican Joe Barton neatly pointed out where accountability really lies in Washington.

Joe Barton, a congressman from Texas and chairman of the House-Senate energy conference committee, made his remarkable statement even as millions of gallons of spilled crude threaten to wash up on the shores of his own district - devastating the lives and livelihoods of millions who voted for him.

However, the fate of those voters obviously means less to him than the $1.8 million he's received in campaign contributions from the oil industry, including BP itself.

But Barton's comments do more than just reveal the level of corporate corruption in Washington - they also remind us of who will inevitably end up paying for the mistakes of others - the taxpayers and those affected by the disaster.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, thousands of homeowners discovered that their homeowners insurance didn't cover the damage caused.

When floods and storms caused devastation and destruction across Mississippi, many business owners discovered that their Mississippi business insurance neatly circumvented responsibility for any of the specific 'acts of God' which befell their premium payers.

In fact, if you go and look at your Insurance Information right now, you might be alarmed to find out just how much it doesn't cover. In New Jersey - notorious flood territory - many homeowners are distraught when they realize that the insurance premiums they've been paying for years don't actually cover the damage caused by the very eventuality they bought insurance to protect themselves against.

In fact, it's a very good time to remind everybody that when you get a Netquote insurance for business or homeowner's insurance, you need to go through it line by line to see just how much your 'discount premium' might actually cost when disaster arrives.

And we shouldn't be surprised by this. In fact, venerable reader Siger recently reminded me: "The business of insurance is to avoid paying claims."

When it comes to BP and the oil spill devastating the gulf, the question of responsibility is slightly wider. I totally resent Joe Barton's 'apology' to Tony Hayward.

Barton is a Republican who has argued for years that government should be smaller - yet when it comes to the responsibility of paying for history's greatest oil leak, he wants to avoid hurting 'big business' (and his campaign contributors) and so argues that the taxpayer should cover the cost of cleaning the mess up instead of those responsible.

Just to clarify, that means Joe Barton is against government spending when it comes to preventing home foreclosures or protecting thousands of auto worker jobs in Detroit - but he is all for it when it prevents a robustly successful company paying for the damage it alone has caused.

Although while we're on that subject, 'it alone' isn't a fair appropriation of blame for the BP spill.

Siger neatly pointed out that President Obama's swaggering about, alluding to 'whose ass he's gonna kick' has been more about political peacocking than anything constructive - and "British Petroleum," as he incessantly keeps calling BP - hasn't been called that for years.

It's true. I remember going to the headquarters of so-called 'British Petroleum' back in the early nineties and even then it was located in Norway, not Norwich (the guy who showed us around was also called Kris Kristofferson, but apparently wasn't the famous country and western singer.)

Obama neatly avoids mentioning that, or this next point - especially during the World Cup:

BP isn't actually even a British company any more. UK shareholders own 40% of it, but the US holds 39% - making us about even (just like we were in our soccer match!)

And when it comes to responsibility for the disaster itself, it's worth pointing out that the rig which exploded - at the cost of all those lives and the world's greatest oil disaster - is owned and operated not by 'British' BP, but by an American-owned company called Transocean, registered in Switzerland.

And here's the kicker: The company that actually does the drilling on the rig that exploded - the ones ultimately responsible for letting this environmental catastrophe happen - are none-other than Halliburton - the Liberal left wing's version of corporate Lucifer.

Halliburton is the company Bush, Cheney and the Republican party are so deeply involved in that they practically allowed them to sponsor the Iraq War.

Considering it's these 'All-American' companies that will be working to finance the $20 billion 'shakedown' of BP that Rep. Joe Barton complained about, I can see now why that sleazy, corrupt idiot was so anxious to avoid them having to actually pay for it.

It seems like insurance companies aren't the only ones eager to wriggle out of paying their dues.

Obama's medical plan - not good enough for his own family?

Obama's controversial overhaul of the American health care system is infuriating both Republicans and health care industry moguls - leading one doctor to plant a poser on the president during an ABC News town hall event:

"Will you promise," the doctor demanded, "that your wife and daughters will only get the medical services covered by your new health insurance plan?"

"No," said Obama. "I'd always want them to get the very best care." Even if that meant buying a more expensive insurance program, or paying for non-covered services out of pocket.

Critics are highlighting this as an example of hypocrisy - a 'Dukakis moment' according to some. Obama's proposing a health care system that even he wouldn't entrust to cover all his family's medical needs.

But is that hypocritical? Or merely honest?

Obama's health care proposal offers some medical care for millions of uninsured people. It might not be comprehensive coverage - the 'best that money can buy' - but it is at least some coverage.

It hasn't been put in place to replace private medical insurance. It's been put there to supplement it - to offer the uninsured something, where they used to get nothing.

If Obama could find a way to offer medical coverage that was better than private health insurance, he wouldn't just be a miracle worker - he'd be the first man in history to make a nationalized health care system work!

[And yet, the Republicans would still attack him, for destroying the 'free market' private health care industry. You just can't win with them. - Editorial Bear.]

No, what he proposes isn't perfect. But perhaps it's the step in the right direction. And, more importantly, it's not like his Republican critics have managed to put forward anything better.

They criticize Obama for not entrusting his family's health to his new system. Perhaps the question should be reversed:

Would they show their 'faith' in the existing system by entrusting their family's health to the current options open for America's 46 million uninsured?

If the answer to that is 'no' (as it should be, for anybody who cares about their family's welfare) than they're the ones who the accusations of hypocrisy should be leveled at.

John Stewart: "F*ck All Y'All!"

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. or New York City.”

Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin explained this belief of hers during a campaign rally in Northern Carolina last week.

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit… …what I call the real America… …hard working very patriotic, pro-American areas of this great nation.”

For the crowd in NC, that was the cue for uproarious applause. Not so further north, where New York city resident and host of the satirical Daily Show responded with two words for Sarah Palin (on behalf of all of New York City.)

“Fuck you!”

New Yorkers were gratified that somebody was sticking up for their city – the de facto capital of the United States and as pro-American a place as anywhere in America. But some critics attacked John Stewart’s profanity, forcing him to clarify:

“…it's not really fair, and it makes it seem like I'm just addressing Governor Palin about this, and I'm not. Just this whole entire theme that there are more American areas of the country, or some people love the country, some people don't.”

To sum up: “What I meant to say is, 'Fuck all y'all.'”

Although John Stewart’s comments are pretty polarizing, he managed to hit the nail right on the head when it comes to the thrust of the Republican campaign for the presidency – following the model which won them the election in 2000 and 2004.

Basically, by spreading the lie that conservatives and evangelicals in the red states (the ones who vote Republican) are somehow ‘better Americans’ than the egg heads, intellectuals and liberals in the blue states (the ones that tend to vote Democrat.)

I’m with John Stewart on this strategy. It’s divisive bullshit and it stinks.

The fact is, you can be anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and a life-long Democrat and still be a damn site better American than a tobacco-chewing, gun-loving Southern Baptist who has an American flag painted on his truck.

This whole idea of ‘if y’ain’t with us, yer against us’ and the insistence that ‘votin’ Republican is votin’ Patriotic’ is just offensive doublespeak intended to split the country in half and make dumb people vote on their gut instinct rather than on the issues.

This rancid attitude is everywhere. On SIRIUS radio, the right-wing talk radio station is called ‘SIRIUS Patriot’ (whereas the left-wing one has the limp title ‘SIRIUS Left.’) On TV and the radio, the right-wing pundits pound each other on the back and praise their rabid right-wing callers with ‘you’re a great American, sir.’

Somehow, lapel-pins, bumper stickers, American flags and ‘support the troops’ stickers have become the currency for patriotism, whereas the truth is the complete opposite of that.

You can have all the bumper stickers in the world, but it doesn’t make you a good American.

Patriotism is not falling into line with the rest of the pack. It’s not blind obedience to a government. It’s not the belief that your religion somehow makes you morally superior and worthy of dictating how others can live their life.

In fact, it’s fighting against all of the above. As famous historian Howard Zinn once wrote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

It’s time the liberals retook the term ‘patriot.’ Because what’s more patriotic than what they do?

• Thousands of Americans are dying in a bloody war overseas. Is it more ‘American’ to send more troops to that meat-grinder? Or angrily protest the war and attempt to ensure that as few brave American soldiers as possible end their lives, alone, on foreign sand?
  
• What’s more ‘American?’ To enforce your religious beliefs in schools and dictate to your offspring what they can and can’t believe? Or to fight to keep religion out of the classroom and stand up for parents to take responsibility for their children’s spiritual growth - in the privacy of their own homes or churches?
  
• What’s more patriotic? To bitterly attack other American’s inalienable rights to pursue ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ because it upsets your religious sensibilities, or to fight to give other Americans the same rights and protections that all citizens should enjoy, under the ethos that ‘all men are created equal.’
  
• Why is it unpatriotic to question the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution is sacred, yet ‘patriotic’ for people like Sarah Palin to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? How can patriots fight to support one freedom at the same time they fight to deny another? Why is the constitution sacred one moment, yet open to changes the next?
  

The American Nation was forged in the fires of rebellion and dissent – by brave men who refused to knuckle under the tyranny of an oppressive government. Contrary to popular belief, that rebellion continues to this day and it’s not the right-wing who represent the ‘patriots.’

The right-wing have come to represent the oppressive, religiously-driven regime that fights to dictate the scope of free men’s rights.

That’s not very American at all.

Don't get me wrong, the liberals can be just as bad. Gun control, redistribution of wealth... Many Democratic policies (especially the fiscal ones) are are repressive as the conservative ones.

So to help liberally minded people keep fighting the good fight - and to ensure they don't follow the right-wing down the dark path - here is my 'Patriot's Manifesto.'

The Patriot's Manifesto:

1. A true patriot never supports any move to repress freedom, and attacks any move to censor, repress, ban, control or outlaw any existing freedom (from gun-control to hard-core pornography.) Repression is slavery.


2. A true patriot constantly questions his government's decisions on the local, state and federal level, from tax rates and tariffs right up to military action overseas. Blind obedience is slavery.


3. A true patriot never allows religion, ideology or dogma to enter into any part of government - from religion in school to socialism in government. Dogma is slavery.


4. That being said, a true patriot never infringes the rights of an American to believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes, temples, churches or mosques. It's freedom 'of' religion, not freedom 'from' religion.


5. A true patriot never infringes the rights of another American if they don't infringe on their own - from gay marriage to what color your neighbour paints his house.


6. A true patriot questions all established theories - but from a position of logic, rationality and fact. It's fine to question Global Warming or Evolution - but not if your only source of information is The Bible or what you heard on The Bill O'Reilly Show (see Rule #8)


7. A true patriot supports independence in all things - from personally freeing yourself from credit-card and bank debt, to making America totally energy independent. Reliance is slavery.


8. A true patriot worships knowledge, rationality and fact - and strives to learn and teach as much as possible. Knowledge isn't just power. It's freedom. Parents have a duty to make sure that their children know more than they do - and things like 'non-explicit' sex education and teaching religious doctrine instead of scientific fact in school go against that. Ignorance is slavery.

I will admit, I'm no perfect patriot. I walk a fine line on some of the issues I've mentioned above (especially when they concern religion.) But overall, I think the philosophies above are the foundation of true patriotism and you'll find as much of that in New York and Boston as you will in a million Podunk towns across the Midwest.

Sarah Palin? Newsflash. Patriotism isn't dictated by geography OR politics.

Sarah Palin's Outfits

As many of you might have heard, Sarah Palin's in hot water at the moment.

She spent $150,000 dollars on clothing in the last month - something the Republicans have classified as "campaign accessories."

Clearly, the lovely lady looks very nice in the Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue outfits - but people are protesting that this so-called 'humble hockey mum' is falsely claiming solidarity with 'Joe Six Pack' - after all, she goes onstage wearing outfits that cost as much as his house.

I, too, think it's totally inappropriate. Don't come crying to me, Ms. Palin, about how you're just a 'regular working mom' when one month's clothes shopping is a multiple of my yearly salary.

"Oh, but it's okay," the Republicans claim. "She didn't pay for these outfits. The Republican Party did - just so she can look her best."

Oh my God, don't get me started on this rubbish.

First off, I think the GOP owes an apology to every single campaign contributor. Decent working Republicans donated significant amounts of their hard-earned income to help McCain's campaign. How do you think they feel about this silly woman blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on pretty skirts instead of effective campaigning?

Secondly, as always, this reveals that the Republicans are about as far from the party of 'fiscal responsibility' as it's possible to get. Oh, McCain and Palin are all about saving money, eh? They're all about knowing the value of a dollar, are they?

Well, why the hell didn't she shop at Marshalls instead of Saks Fifth Avenue? Is 'Joe Six Pack' really going to be upset if she turns up to a campaign rally in outlet-discounted skirt and blouse instead of a sexy little number that cost the same as the average American's yearly wage?

Look at it this way. In the last month, this 'small town Mom' spent the equivalent of five (read that, FIVE) union worker's salaries. On clothes.

Most of us are struggling to fill up our gas tanks and pay our bills. Not pretty Miss Palin. She's playing Barbie doll with the Republican credit card.

And they have the gall to accuse Obama of being 'elitist.'

Now don't get me wrong. I know 'the clothes maketh the man.' I know the GOP want Sarah to look her best. But style doesn't have anything to do with expense. One of the few annoying things about the American mentality is the misguided belief that class has a price-tag attached to it. She could look GREAT on one tenth of the budget the Republicans gave her - and even $15,000 a month on clothes is still abjectly disgusting for somebody claiming to be just a 'regular Joe.'


And I certainly don't begrudge anybody who wants to wear those beautiful clothes. I mean, if I earned enough money, you bet your arse I'd be sporting Brooks Brother's sports jackets and zooming around the country in an Aston Martin. But the caveat of that is 'if I earned enough money.' Which I don't.

I admire the Donald Trumps and the Warren Buffets of this world. I think P-Diddy entirely justified in blowing his hard-earned dough on Cristal champagne with diamonds in the glass. I think the life and shopping habits of the super-rich are their own business and they're entitled to every silky luxury they can afford.

But not politicians. Not with other people's money, in any case. Not when they claim to represent the 'working man' and folks 'just like you.'

When Sarah Palin first came onto the political scene, I was quite enamoured by her. I think she was focused, capable and a good person. But she's no 'maverick.' Look how quickly this 'outsider' got enveloped by the bullshit and hypocrisy of politics.

It makes John Edwards' $400 haircuts look like chickenfeed.

Why I Support Barack Obama

I like John McCain. I really do. I like him as a person and as a politician - but the further he retreats into the arms of the conservative core of the Republican party, the more independent centrists like me are forced towards Barack Obama.

So a few days ago, despite wavering back and forth between the two for months, I decided to put my money down.

I bet on Barack Obama.

Don't get me wrong - he's not a perfect candidate by any means. Nor are the Democrats the perfect party. Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae are just two of the many recent examples of continuous corruption and graft overlooked by Democratic politicians (in return to substantial campaign contributions.)

But America isn't the country it was even a month ago.

The right wing talk show pundits warned that Obama would socialize America. In the end, it was the Bush government that nationalised the mortgage industry and is now considering doing the same to the banks. By the time Obama gets sworn in, there isn't going to be any industry left to socialize!

Things are going to happen whether we like them or not. America is being swept away by a current and the President can't change the direction it flows in.

I reached my decision to support Obama for several reasons:

Obama will cut taxes for the middle class - Obama's tax-cut program will give Tina and I back more than twice what McCain's would. That doesn't even include McCain's plan to tax health insurance - taking even more money from middle class people like us.

Obama is more fiscally responsible (although this is debatable)- McCain talks big about cutting pork barrel spending, but his financial plans don't do anything to tackle the deficit or the bankrupt mess that is Social Security. Obama's tax-plan will raise the burden on America's richest 1% - meaning he'll run a tighter ship than McCain. Besides, after eight years of financial ruin, can anybody trust Republicans to be 'fiscally conservative' any more?

The fact that they voted down the $700 billion bailout - yet voted FOR it when $100 billion in 'pork' was tacked on - proves that Republicans are hog farmers just like the Democrats.

Obama is more socially liberal - This is probably what swayed it for me. On issues like civil partnerships for gay couples, sex education in schools and the like, McCain is liberal enough. However, his party isn't and I don't want to see America's liberties trodden underfoot anymore. There are members of the Republican party who want to outlaw sexuality, enforce Religion and turn the 'land of the free' into a twee, homogenized pseudo-Christian Disneyland.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. Have you ever been to Disneyland? Impossible to get a gin and tonic anywhere.

Obama is a better statesman - Nobody will deny that Obama is a smooth operator. McCain, with his gurning expression and hunched shoulders, is the butt of jokes. Obama, on the other hand, is a modern-day John F. Kennedy (just without the sexually transmitted diseases.) If we wanted to pick a president on the basis of who's more presidential, Obama wins hands down.

Obama is a better ambassador - The Europeans love him. The Middle East will sit up and take note when a brown-skinned man with the middle name 'Hussein' takes office. Obama promises to actually tackle problem nations like Iran and North Korea, instead of refusing to talk to their leaders and barking aggressively at them like a chained-up junk yard dog.

Just by electing Obama, America will go some way towards restoring the international prestige that George Bush destroyed.

Obama will screw up the Supreme Court less than McCain - Let's be honest, here. Supreme Court judges legislate from the bench. The right wing can crow all they want, but conservatives like Scalia are JUST as bad as liberals like Ginsberg. Whatever happens, the Supreme Court will interpret laws how they want - and in that case, I'd much rather a liberal addition to the bench than a conservative one. I don't like it, but I don't like it less than anybody the Republicans could suggest.

Obama will get things done - By the time the election rolls around, we'll have a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat-controlled Senate. This renders McCain, as a Republican, pretty much powerless to get anything done unless he crosses party lines. We may not like everything Obama puts forward, but at least it'll stand a chance of seeing the light of day.

It's time for a damn change! So we've just had eight years of the most hated president in recent history... And you want to elect one from the same party? Say what you want about Bush, but I think his failure says as much about current Republican party values as anything about him personally (actually, if he started drinking again I imagine he'd be fun to hang out with.) It is time for a change. It's time for a Democrat. Simple as...

I just want to support him - Perhaps most importantly of all, I support Barack Obama for a simple, silly - possibly even racist reason:

When my son is studying history - and looks back on the historic 2008 election (when the first African American candidate stood for the White House) I don't want to tell him that I voted for the stuffy, white, Republican septuagenarian.

Change is coming one way or another - We can either be part of it, or we can sit on the sidelines and gnash our teeth.

Blissful Ignorance

A very disturbing trend I've noticed regarding the upcoming Presidential Election is the enthusiastic embrace of ignorance.

Some people don't like the horrible truth, so they resolutely refuse to accept it - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm afraid to say it's the conservatives who are the most enthusiastically ignorant. Many conservatives claim that their refusal of rationality is a 'political choice' whereas really, it's just bloody mindedness tinged with stupidity.

The most obvious example of this is Evolution.

Many conservatives - including presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee - reject the 'theory' of Evolution. Some prefer to consider 'intelligent design' - which is a not-mutually-exclusive theory in which the development of man was overseen by some 'higher power'

But others, like Huckabee himself, prefer 'Creationist' theory. This is the belief that the world was created exactly as described in the Bible - over the course of seven days, a little more that seven thousand years ago.

The problem with this 'theory' is that it's bunkum. Utter, preposterous rubbish.

Because 'Evolution' is not just a theory. It's also a fact.

Evolution is Here to Stay

The 'theory' of Evolution was not just invented by Charles Darwin while he was in a drunken stupor aboard The Beagle. It was a theory pieced together through objective examination of the evidence.

Further research - which yielded carbon-dating figures and the bones of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths - proved conclusively that animals have changed and developed over the course of the millenia and the world is considerably more than 7,000 years old.

Now whether you believe mankind developed from monkeys via random selection or the work of some 'higher power' is up to you - but it's a fact that humanity as we know it has walked the earth for 33,000 years before the Bible claimed it did.

Evolution is only a 'theory' in the same way that gravity is a 'theory.' We theorise why a ball thrown into the air will be drawn inextricably to the ground. The fact that it happens - each and every time - is a incontrovertible fact.

So people like Huckabee - who refuse to accept concrete, inarguable facts that blow their religious dogma out of the water - are just willfully, gleefully ignorant. And is that the sort of person we want running the country?

But leaving aside Evolution - which at least has the armour of religious dogma to protect it - let's examine some of the other incontrovertible facts conservatives blissfully ignore.

Global Warming

In the past century, the temperature of the world has gone up by a little more than a single degree centigrade. This is an astonishing rise in temperature and has been linked directly to the increase of so called 'greenhouse gases' accumulating in the atmosphere since the mid 20th century.

Given the industrialisation of the world, it is estimated that the planet's temperature could rise by as much as 6 degrees centigrade in the 21st century.

The world is getting hotter. That's a fact.

Unless, of course, you're a conservative.

Because a large number of conservatives refuse to believe the 'theory' of Global Warming and the mountain of scientific evidence linking man-made greenhouse gases to the rise in temperature.

One of the major reasons to be skeptical of the 'theory' of Global Warming is because it's convenient not to believe. If Global Warming is real, we're in trouble. It will take an expensive and inconvenient revolution to transform the world's industries to be environmentally friendly.

No more gas-guzzling cars. No more smoke-churning factories. It will take research and investment and - worst of all - we might have get up off the sofa to take part in it.

So plenty of people choose to be skeptical - and the conservative right (linked to oil industry investors desperate for us not to believe in Global Warming) are happy to swallow up the cynical propaganda pumped out to keep us skeptical.

I stole this cartoon from CK's Blog and I hope he doesn't mind!

I recommend reading Wikipedia's post on the subject of Climate Change denial. It's pretty scary reading.

Is there any credibility to the Global Warming skepticism? Well the most knowledgeable person I know is a friend of mine, energy conservationist Margo Bettencourt - who says: "Denying that global warming/climate change is real is akin to saying evolution is 'just a theory'. In both cases, those who don't know how to deal with the consequences of an issue deny it's truthiness. We'd all be better off if these naysayers could accept that we came from monkeys and are changing the climate."

Margo is the dictionary definition of a 'smart cookie' and if her opinions are good enough for Colombia University and the city of New York, they easily trump any of the cynical oil-industry funded 'strategic studies groups' [Or SUV owning laymen from the midwest - Editorial Bear.]

Why so dumb?

With things like Evolution, we just have to take the scientist's word for it (the thousands of scientist's words for it, backed up with mountains of incontrovertible evidence.)

For something like Global Warming, the evidence is right there in front of us.

I was born on a snowy day in February in 1978. In recent years, England can go for years without snow appearing. The bookies have even stopped running odds on a 'white Christmas' because what was once a reasonably common occurrence has now simply ceased to happen.

In 2002, I spent Christmas day in a New York snowstorm. This Christmas, I was walking around without a jacket on. Global warming is HERE. It's a FACT and we're all living it and witnessing it with our own eyes.

It just boggles the mind why people would make a conscious decision to ignore what they see right in front of them and instead live a fantasy of political expediency.

The problem the conservatives are creating for themselves with this 'embrace of ignorance' is clear. They're pouring their credibility down the plug hole.

If somebody chooses to ignore a fact, like the parallel between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, or carbon-dating proving that rocks are millions of years old, it makes you wonder what other incontrovertible truths they're willing to ignore.

I mean, the conservatives tell us that the 'War on Terror' is helping to make America safer. It's the cornerstone of the Republican presidential campaign (have you heard the presidential nominees talk about anything else?)

But are we any safer? And can we take the conservatives' word for it, even if we are?

The economy is another issue. Most conservatives would never vote Democrat because they're the 'party of big spending and tax increases.' Yet history has illustrated through the five recent terms of Republican presidency that Elephants can't balance a chequebook.

Right now, the Republican nominees are bleating about the wonders of Reaganomics. This 'golden age' of the American economy was a balloon that got popped on Black Monday.

Reaganomics is a myth.

In reality, Ronald Reagan plunged America into three trillion dollars worth of debt. While the President delivered tax cuts to the super-rich (slashing a 70% income tax to just 28%) payroll taxes for the average working man actually increased.

His Republican successor, H.W. Bush, similarly won the election on the promise of 'no new taxes' - but reneged on his promise as soon as he'd got his expensive loafers into the Oval Office.

Yet people keep buying into the dreary dogma!

In Conclusion

The embrace of ignorance has got me deeply worried about the upcoming election.

It's a well known fact that most of America votes on blinkered party lines - it's single percentage points of 'swing voters' who make the difference and tip the scales towards a Republican or Democratic president.

But Democracy is a system vulnerable to stupid voters - and there seem to be more of them than ever!

Maybe it's because I have liberal pretensions, or I'm a writer, or I occasionally watched Will & Grace and therefore contributed to the 'pro-gay biased liberal media' or some such rubbish - but I live with a dream of an election fought through open debate, rationality and logic.

Sure, some of our reasons for picking the president are going to be illogical. Some people aren't going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Some people are going to vote for Mitt Romney because they mistakenly believe he's really Evil Dead actor Bruce Campbell.

But the big issues? It would be nice if policy was dictated by an objective appreciation of the facts. Unfortunately, there's a powerful movement in conservative America that would happily ignore the inconvenient 'facts' in order to embrace a much more comforting fantasy they call the 'truth.'

As historian Indiana Jones said in The Last Crusade:

"FACT."

"History is the search for fact. Not truth."

"If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."

The Election Aftermath

Well, the voters of New Jersey have spoken.

On Election Day 2007 - which I covered here - the people of Middlesex County voted in resounding support of their incumbent mayors, with only South River's Robert Szegeti getting booted off in favour of Republican challenger Raymond Eppinger.

And while this leaves South River with a 'one party' local government (the mayor and five council members are now Republican) the rest of New Jersey remained grudgingly loyal to the Democrats - although how they approached the four 'voters questions' revealed that they want their democratic representatives to rein in the spending and stay fiscally conservative.

North Brunswick's mayor, Francis 'Mac' Womack III was welcomed back for another term - and good for him. He's done our township proud.

Aside from choosing our representatives, however, voters of New Jersey were asked to vote on four specific 'questions' that effected our great state.

The first was:

1: Should New Jersey permanently dedicate a percentage of revenue earned from sales tax towards property tax relief?

New Jersey said no.

Which was the right decision, no doubts about it. While New Jersey has some of the highest property tax in the whole of the United States, it seems entirely illogical to take money out of one tax pool to alleviate the sting of the other. If New Jersey has such an enormous surplus in their sales tax revenue, perhaps they ought to lower the tax rate?

Or, alternatively, they should use that revenue stream to pay for whatever it is that keeps the property taxes so high?

Although it is more complicated than that. Sales tax is raised on a state level, while property taxes are raised by the townships where people live. It's easy to forget that government in America is a multi-tiered structure and the different tiers have responsibility paying for different things.

But accepting that makes the proposed property tax relief even more illogical. If property taxes pay for schooling, rubbish collection and local police and fire services - things only a particular township benefit from - why should the entire state of New Jersey bail out particular townships via the sales tax?

Because rerouting sales tax revenue to offer property tax relief essentially leaves everybody in New Jersey - renters and property owners alike - bailing out the home owners. Which simply isn't fair.

2: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $450 million for stem cell research?

Again, the answer was a resounding no.

On the surface, I think that's a very good thing. Borrowing such an astonishing amount of money to pump into an uncertain science doesn't make good financial sense. The people of New Jersey pay their taxes to receive the benefit of public services - not to invest in ill-considered business adventures.

My suspicion is, however, that many people voted 'no' simply because of the scary concept of stem cell research. There has been a pretty good disinformation campaign about this fledgling science that has people scared of human cloning and other people worried about the thought of human embryos being used in research.

To reject this proposal because it made poor financial sense is a good thing. To reject it because of ignorance and fear is bad. Stem cell research can be conducted ethically and might offer the chance to repair nerve damage and diseases that are currently untreatable.

It could herald a new era in science and medicine. We shouldn't reject it simply because we want to remain in the blissfully ignorant dark ages.

3: Should New Jersey approve borrowing $200 million for open space preservation?

New Jersey voted yes.

Which is a great victory. A victory because the borrowed $200 million can be invested in keeping the 'Garden State' living up to it's name. Forests, grassland, farmland and plains can be preserved and protected from aggressive redevelopment, meaning a new generation of New Jersey children will grow up being able to enjoy the beautiful countryside.

In America, there are currently 1 million unsold new homes, suggesting that the drive to build, build and build is not a wise one. There are strip-malls and shopping centres enough in New Jersey. While I'm all for supporting free enterprise and market forces, I think New Jersey needs a hundred acres of woodland far more than it needs another K-Mart.

By voting 'yes,' the people of New Jersey created a market force of their own - and proved that preserving the countryside was something they were willing to invest their tax dollars in.

4: Should we revise language outlining when voting rights can be denied by deleting from the state Constitution the phrase "idiot or insane person" and replacing it with the phrase "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting."

This was another resounding yes - and requires very little explanation.

The Next Step

Back when I was studying politics at Plymouth College of Further Education, we were taught that local elections can mean a lot of different things. Sometimes they can even predict the direction national politics will take.

If that's the case, I think New Jersey has spoken.

Support for the Democrats seems strong, suggesting that NJ will lean towards a Democratic candidate in 2008's presidential elections. However, this support is tempered by a growing demand for fiscal responsibility - and any hopeful candidates should accept and embrace that.

I think this might well prove to be a national trend. With America balanced on the knife-edge of recession, the important election issues are a lot closer to home than people suspect. Jobs. Taxes. Inflation. The Economy.

My father figures the 2008 elections will follow the 1992 ones, with the major campaign issue being 'the economy, stupid.'

It was that mantra, hung outside Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, that helped lure voters away from the seemingly unbeatable President Bush Snr.

Bush Snr. had seen the end of the cold war and the successful Desert Storm through - but left America in the depths of a recession. James Carville, the campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid' to make Americans consider domestic financial issues as well as foreign policy ones.

It was enough to topple Bush Snr, whose approval ratings had been at 80% just the year before.

Now history threatens to repeat itself! With a Bush in the White House and a Clinton standing at the gates. Except this time, the departing Bush Jnr has an approval rating barely half that of his father.

If the local elections in New Jersey have taught us anything, it's that the winning presidential candidate will need to have some sensible spending ideas that will send the American economy trundling out of the doldrums.