I suspect (as I've discussed with my brother Joe) that the point of ethanol isn't to reduce greenhouse gasses, but to reduce dependency on foreign oil. The US is still an agricultural superpower, and farmers vote. Further, the technology for refining and burning oil is fairly mature, but we have a long way to go with biomass, which can only get more efficient as the market dictates.

You can't trust Bush to do the right thing, but this is at least less of a bad thing than usual. Meanwhile, renewable energy technology will continue to become more viable. For the moment, I'm glad that conservatives are being pushed in the right direction. With luck, adults will be in charge after the 2008 elections and we can really work toward solving the problems we created.

When in Antarctica, I visited the Ukraine. Really. I have legal proof: My passport is stamped with a Urkainian visa. Our tour stopped at Vernadsky Station, and the friendly station personnel made us feel at home.

I can recommend the vodka. Here is a picture of me with the bartender:

http://porpoising.shutterfly.com/action/slideshow?caid=67b0de21b336430ba4f5&a=67b0de21b336430ba4f5&auto=0&idx=32&m=1&d=1200779130213

To fully access the esoteric and the occult without distraction, one needs a Premium Membership.

Using religion to justify flying airplanes into buildings or to teach children to blow themselves up and kill other children, isn't an act of faith, it's an act of misplaced faith. Unfortunately, such misplaced faith is no stranger to the US, as Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and the war on native Indians. Indeed, if one can couch any hatred as our God-given right than one can sway the American electorate. Perhaps its the Pilgrim heritage, perhaps its laziness, perhaps it gullibility. But religious bigotry gets right wingers elected.

The difference between Islamic terrorists and Muslim terrorists is, if you'll pardon the expression, Talmudic. The evil committed by terrorists in the name of their religion is despite their faith, not because of it. To tar the vast majority of peace-loving faithful with the actions of a minority is wrong, but we can describe people by the words they use to describe themselves. We just have to make sure we know who we're fighting, and it's not a religion, it's a bunch of godless thugs.

When politicians pander to the hatred of their audience, they should be ignored, but aren't. Alas.

Too many on the right simply don't live in the real world. McCain is smarter than that, but he if he wants to be president he has to pander to special interests. And then pay lip service to his promises to gullible conservatives.

To a lesser extent, this is true of the Democrats as well, but at least they have to pander to people who are against the war and in favor of good economic stewardship. I look forward to brother Joe's analysis of Clinton and Obama.

Deniers love to cradle the few "scientists" who have doubts about global warming, legitimate or otherwise. They conveniently forget the other side of the equation, the 10% (or more) who think the problem is much much worse than our bureaucratically driven government can admit. The facts are not in doubt, and the conclusions from those facts are becoming more obvious.

As usual, brother Joe has cut to the chase.

Brother Joe's article mentions in passing one of the major ways a president can save lives and help the economy despite the coming ravages of a rising sea: Appoint competent, caring people as judges and to oversee Federal agencies.

The current administration has done the exact opposite: Bush surrounds himself with incompetent ideological sycophants. McCain won't be much better.

President Clinton or President Obama will select people who have the values and the training to make a positive difference in the world. More than any campaign promise, this is an important reason to vote for whichever one becomes the nominee.

The only thing we're sure about the Kennedy Assassination is that the Warren Commission Report was flawed in major ways and was not the definitive answer that we needed to reach closure. The government's failure to take a harsh look at itself opened a can of worms that can't be put back.

Similarly, the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with 9/11 investigations opens the door to all these wild theories. The truth about the attacks seems simple. Applying Occam's Razor to the known facts makes some of the wild theories just too foolish to consider.

Bush's cowardice and failure to admit his own mistakes before, during and after 9/11 don't prove that the 9/11 Commission was wrong, but they don't provide the definitive answer that we need to reach closure.

There are still unanswered questions: Who was behind the anthrax attacks? Who made all that money from selling airline stocks short? Why were members of the bin Laden family allowed to leave the country before they could be questioned as thoroughly as many suspects who landed in Guantanamo who we now know are completely innocent?

We may never know. What should have been a straightforward investigation has been derailed by political ideology. The self-assessment after Pearl Harbor should have been the model. Alas, like the Kennedy Assassination, the government's failure to take a harsh look at itself opened a can of worms that can't be put back.