In order to preserve their political access -- and thus their secular power -- many Evangelical religious leaders will not take stands on or speak out against Bush administration policies with dubious morality. Only a few Evangelical leaders have summoned the courage to oppose the Bush administration line about global warming, for instance.

This sort of self-censorship negates one of the most important roles of people of faith: that of being voices for morality and justice. When religion is co-opted by government, it loses its moral independence.

Their goal is not to implement the conservative vision of the shining city on the hill. It's to grab and maintain power and shower themselves and their cronies in wealth. To do that, they've paid a lot of lip service to the true believers and thrown them a few chunks of red meat to gain their support. But they have no intention of really implementing their plans.

Real conservatives are just starting to realize this. I think the Harriet Miers nomination, where Bush tried to put his old family retainer on the court (an attempt to save his butt when the manure inevitably hits the fan down the road?) was a wake-up call for them. They are now looking more critically at Bush's actual performance (as opposed to his happy talk) and aren't pleased with what they see. Whether this will translate into Republican loss is anyone's guess, though. Putting anti-gay measures on the ballot will get these folks out to the polls regardless of whether they are happy with the current crop of Republican candidates.

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

Perhaps we could take up a collection to send the VP and his hunting buddies to a basic hunter's safety course.

What's also intriguing about this story is that Cheney is apparently always accompanied by a full medical team -- lucky for his victim! It makes sense (I'm sure Bush has one, too), but it also brings the issue of the VP's health into the public eye. People are constantly speculating about whether Cheney's health is worse than he claims it is. He is very secretive about this issue and it's hard to tell whether this is reflexive or whether he really is sicker than he wants to admit. I suspect that a good many of his furtive doctor/hospital visits are for monitoring and adjusting his pacemaker-defibrillator -- cardiologists keep these patients on a pretty short leash. But he's so secretive about them that we have no clear idea what's going on. The medical team is of course there "just in case" ... but we don't know what the probability is that "just in case" might happen.

As the person who's next in line for the presidency, Cheney really should be more open about his health. Everyone knows that he suffers from heart disease, anyhow, and all of the cloak-and-dagger stuff about it just seems counter-productive. It makes him look less fit for office, not more. While we don't need blow-by-blow updates on his medical visits, for example, being a bit more forthcoming about them would inspire more confidence in his judgement.

Cheney is in love with power and secrecy, though; the treatment of this accidental shooting just confirms it. He also seems to place a lot of importance on being viewed as the strong man. So expecting him to come clean about his health status is unrealistic.

Especially if you're Dick Cheney.

I think his reaction is significant. A responsible adult who accidentally shot someone would be aghast at what he'd done. He'd apologize and take responsibility for his mistake.

I don't know what emotions Cheney felt about the shooting, but he certainly didn't react to it responsibly. First he wanted the story kept under wraps; then, through his office, he claimed that the accident was the fault of the victim.

So much for the much-vaunted Republican value of personal responsibility. Apparently it only applies to poor people and women.

I live in a school district with a good academic reputation and an abundance of well-educated doctor, lawyer, business executive and other professional parents. My older son is a 6th grader in the district's middle school. He is a very good student and enjoys his classes, especially math and science. He plays sports and does a lot of typical boy things. Yet he is regulary harassed by other boys about his vocabulary (he uses too many "big words") and his enthusiasm for learning. He has frequently mentioned the lack of interest that other kids, especially boys, show in school. They are tuning out their parents and teachers and view education as a low priority. My son sometimes feels like a pariah because he's out of step with his peers.

If this is happening in a good school district, one with many involved parents who are role models for the benefits of education, I can only imagine how bad it is elsewhere.