Doing our part - or not

Last week, in an honorable attempt to draw public attention to the global warming crisis, former Vice President Al Gore testified on Capitol Hill, calling the issue "a true planetary emergency." Not surprisingly, he faced no dearth of opposition, most notably from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming "the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." (I assume Inhofe boasts a Ph.D. in earth science, meteorology, or some similar discipline, and thus is more qualified than Gore, who has researched climate change for years.)

These hearings revealed the true nature of America's dialogue on global warming. On one end there are the whistle-blowers like Al Gore, who recognize the potential catastrophic consequences of the problem and make a concerted effort to warn of them. At the other extreme are deniers like Inhofe, who claim concern for the environment, but fail to acknowledge that human activity is threatening its welfare in any way. Finally, in the middle are people like myself who are genuinely troubled by the notion of global warming, but often choose personal comfort and convenience over tangible action. It should surprise no one that a large segment of the American population still does not consider this a serious problem. After all, it's much easier to pretend that it doesn't exist than to do something about it, especially for those who have a vested interest in downplaying the threat.

The fact is that everyone's action (or inaction) has a profound impact. This past winter, I was dismayed to observe a girl at work who would sit in her car for an hour at lunch with the engine idling -- presumably for the sole purpose of staying warm. She probably didn't give it a second thought, either oblivious to the environmental implications or thinking they weren't severe enough to make a difference. Then there are Americans who routinely jack up the thermostats in their homes to avoid wearing an extra sweater; or who will stand in the hot shower for twenty minutes just because it feels good; or who light up their homes at night like palaces, not realizing (or not caring) that the overwhelming majority of their electricity probably comes from ozone-depleting, coal-burning power plants.

I mention all of this not as a guilt trip, but as a reminder. Those who refer to global warming as a "debate" do so simply as an excuse for doing nothing. After all, it's harder to ignore a problem whose existence is proven. The reality is that everyone must help tackle this crisis. It takes sacrifice, but the consequences of inaction far outweigh the conveniences we give up to avert those consequences.

Checks and balances on Bush, Gonzales

There's no need to dwell too long on this latest soap opera, so I won't. Suffice it to say that Congress had better not give in to George W. Bush's demands to allow his aides to "discuss" the firing of U.S. attorneys in private, off the record, and not under oath. If Bush refuses to back down, subpoenas need to be issued immediately.

His self-described "reasonable proposal" is anything but. Most of all, it's a joke. A non-publicized, non-recorded conversation with the likes of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers affords zero accountability. The president says he won't allow his advisors to testify under oath because it would infringe upon executive privilege and discourage them from offering "candid advice" in the future. What he's really worried about, most likely, is their ability to lie without repercussion. Testifying under oath and on the record would not give them that luxury.

Obviously, this situation is noteworthy not so much for the details that brought it to light, but for its implications. George W. Bush often talks about how members of his administration serve "at the pleasure of the president." If that's true, though, then equally so is the notion that the president serves at the pleasure of his constituency. Constitutional checks and balances were created to ensure that no branch of American government becomes too powerful. An executive branch whose core attributes include secrecy, dishonesty, deception, and contempt for the law is exactly what this concept was devised to prevent and address. The truth needs to be revealed, and if a legal battle is required for that purpose, so be it. Bush's so-called offer, however, is nothing more than an insult to the American people who gave him his power in the first place.

Health care: Human right, not luxury

Last weekend, while browsing through the Chicago Tribune at my parents' house, I came across a variety of letters to the editor concerning a new tax proposal championed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Chicago (pictured left). In simplest terms, his proposal would implement a gross-receipts tax on Illinois businesses, requiring them to pay the state each time they receive compensation for their products or services. The billions of dollars in revenue would be used in large part to fund state-subsidized health coverage for the uninsured in Illinois.

The letters in the Tribune (many of which were authored, not surprisingly, by residents of some of Chicago's wealthiest suburbs) lambasted Blagojevich's idea, saying that the tax would do little more than exact a heavy toll on businesses, who would ultimately pass on the bill to consumers through higher prices. Some entrepreneurs, they contended, would simply leave Illinois and seek states with more friendly tax environments.

What these letters ignore is the fact that the states they refer to with lower taxes will eventually be forced to consider measures very similar to those of Blagojevich, because America's health-care system is an absolute disgrace. There are nearly 50 million citizens in this country who do not have access to health care because they are uninsured and simply cannot afford it. Millions more have insurance that is inadequate, or insurance with premiums so high that it is cost-prohibitive. This is not acceptable, and it cannot continue. The current system does not work.

I recognize that Blagojevich's proposal has more than its share of flaws. Indeed, there is no silver-bullet solution to America's health-care woes. But at the very least, the governor deserves credit for recognizing that the problem exists, while other lawmakers either pretend it isn't happening or propose solutions that will only make it worse. Requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance is one example of this. Health insurance is not affordable for the independently employed, and in a nation as wealthy as ours, we shouldn't have to "insure" our own ability to receive quality care in case of sickness or injury.

From its roots, America has always had a natural aversion to raising taxes. Some people believe we can maintain a civilized society and all its luxuries and services without ever doing this. There are some public services, however, that simply are not an option. Health care is one. Millions of uninsured Americans would no doubt be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant they could go to the emergency room and not end up financially ruined as a result. Universal health coverage is far from perfect, but if I were uninsured and got hurt in a car accident, I'd take it any day over the privatized system we have now. So, too, would the authors of the letters described above, if they ended up in the same situation.

Congressional efforts to embolden terrorists

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Co. have repeatedly rejected the idea of a timetable for exiting Iraq, saying such a move would "embolden" the terrorists. This premise, of course, assumes that the U.S. occupation and ensuing chaos -- and the lies Bush used to justify both -- did not embolden them in any way.

I suppose this means we'll be in Iraq for eternity, because in the absence of said timetable, we'll never be making any plans to leave. That is, unless the Bush administration has already selected an undisclosed date on which all American troops will be surreptitiously withdrawn overnight -- the hope being that the insurgents won't notice we're gone the next day.

There are no good options for the Iraq disaster, but continued military force has already proved to be the worst among them.

The art of a good brew

Lately, I've developed an obsession with the family of Rogue beers (pictured above but not all-inclusive), created by the Rogue Brewery of Newport, Oregon. Arguably one of the finest collections of craft beers offered by any brewer in the United States, this group encompasses a wide variety of fascinating recipes. My favorite among them is the Chipotle Ale, brewed with real smoked jalapeno peppers. Indeed, it sounds terrible, but I was hooked on its zesty flavor almost immediately. If you're in the mood for something much richer, try the Chocolate Stout, but don't even try to gulp it down. This is one you'll need to enjoy slowly. It is extremely dark, thick, and made with real chocolate. I savored every drop of it.

Speaking of beer, I've finally decided to tackle the enterprise of home brewing with a friend. I know some people are likely surprised that I haven't been doing this for a long time already. Well, hopefully that time has finally arrived. We've got (most of) what we need -- with the exception of a few key items that will make the initial process significantly easier. I need to get my act together and order those remaining products. Our first attempt will be an Irish Red Ale. When it's finally complete, anyone brave enough to try it is welcome. More on this to come later.

Beer is more than a beverage. It is an art.

Obama, the scofflaw

Does this man look like the type of person who would leave his car blocking bus stops and accumulate nearly $400 worth of parking tickets during his time in law school?

He did, according to news reports released today. And what's worse, those tickets were apparently not paid off until January of this year. (Barack Obama attended Harvard Law from 1988 until 1991.) Clearly, this was a well-calculated attempt on the part of the Illinois senator to clean his record of such an egregious offense before announcing his run for the White House. Good thing it came to light when it did.

I was mildly amused, and yet not surprised, to see networks like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News talking about this nonsense. It's their job to dig up any dirt they can find on high-profile candidates, because that's what sells headlines. Most remarkable perhaps is the fact that they all seemed to come across it at the very same time. Talk about an independent news media.

Then I got to thinking: If this is the most scandalous line they can run against Obama so far, he must be doing pretty well. Keep up the good work, Barack. You look to be one of the very few inspiring attributes about the upcoming 2008 presidential race.

An unrecognized male struggle

Last week, Newsweek magazine carried an excellent cover story about the hidden problem of men with clinical depression. It accurately depicted the long-held misconception that males suffer from the disorder at rates far lower than that of women -- a misconception based upon the fact that while women tend to be open and expressive of their emotions, men tend to suppress them and channel them through other outlets. For many decades, this has left millions of American men undiagnosed and untreated for a mental illness that can be crippling.

I bring this up because depression is an issue I've faced since high school. My symptoms have historically included anxiety, emotional hypersensitivity including feelings of severe loneliness, sadness, and isolation, irritability and anger over frivolous issues, lack of energy, and insomnia. What's remarkable about this is the probability that even some people who know me closely would have no idea I face these struggles. That's because of how well I've trained myself over the years to suppress and mask the symptoms. There's a certain cultural stigma associated with men who openly discuss their emotions, especially negative ones. How often do you hear twenty-something males talking about how sad or isolated they are feeling?

Luckily, I now take medication that helps dramatically. Full nights once spent wide awake are now spent in restorative sleep. Feelings of desolation and hopelessness have been replaced by feelings of greater contentment. Situations that once would leave me flustered are now less traumatic. Certainly I'm not suggesting that I don't still have episodes of serious depression, manifested through the various symptoms mentioned above -- I will for the rest of my life -- but these episodes are made less severe and shorter in duration with the help of antidepressants.

I hope that the medical community -- and our broader culture -- will continue to acknowledge the severity of depression across both genders so that those who suffer from it, particularly men, feel at ease in seeking help. It's a disorder that can have a profound impact on people's lives, and it's important that the affected are able to make a distinction between a character flaw and a clinical condition for which treatment is available.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease

Ann Coulter is one of those household names in American culture who routinely makes outrageous remarks to get her picture and name in bold headlines, on television screens, and mentioned in the blogosphere. I initially started this post by referring to Coulter as a "political commentator." Then I realized her commentary would have to be substantive, rational, and based in fact to qualify her for such a distinction. My original description would have been inaccurate.

In any event, Coulter's latest round of vile rhetoric came during a speech last week at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, where, during her discussion of various Democratic presidential hopefuls, she made the following remark about former Sen. John Edwards: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

According to news accounts, the audience erupted into applause after she said this. Then, as is typically the case, political figures from both major parties jumped on the opportunity to denounce Coulter. Of course, given the very ephemeral attention span of America's mass media, this uproar will die down after a few days and not resurface again until the next cultural icon makes some off-the-cuff remark. Nonetheless, Ann Coulter got from this incident precisely what she wanted and needed: lots of attention.

In a sense, I feel sorry for her because of this. It has nothing to do with how disgusting I find her comments. It has everything to do with how clearly desperate she is to be recognized by people. Her remarks are designed to generate a firestorm of publicity. It makes no difference to her whether the attention is positive or negative. Evidently, she simply needs to be noticed. She probably can't thrive any other way. There's a distinct possibility that she doesn't even believe what she says, but knows that her words will earn her the fame (or infamy) that she apparently craves so much.

Obviously, Coulter isn't alone in this regard. There are a lot of people who will say or do anything just to be acknowledged by others. What we must remember, though, is that she is as free to express herself as any other American citizen, regardless of how repugnant her comments may be. And that's exactly how it should be in our marketplace of ideas.