I start this post with some trepidation. I’m not sure I want to open this can of worms. I don’t want to believe that what I’m beginning to fear is real. My conservative friends are going to say, “This is what we’ve been trying to tell you.” My liberal friends are going to say, “You’re a Republican-loving idiot. And Obama is still better than Bush.”

At the end of this, I have a favor to ask, especially from my liberal friends.

To kick this off, I have three quotes that have continued to circulate through my brain. Keep these in mind as you read this post.

1. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” — Rahm Emanuel

2.  “The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now… (B)ut only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment.” — President Obama from his address to the nation earlier this week. Full transcript here.

3. “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” — Spock

Reasons for Human Behavior
I’ve always loved Spock’s intellect and insight. His analytical mind, yet his openness to believe what should be unbelievable. I think we often try to make things more complicated than they need to be. Human behavior is really fairly predictable. People do things for various reasons. And typically those reasons are fairly simple. To do good. To make money. To have fun. To change the world. Accomplishing our goals may not be so simple, but the reasons for our actions typically are.

I have been approaching my criticism of President Obama and his handling, or mishandling, of this oil crisis from a fairly simple perspective. That his lack of leadership skills have dramatically compounded an environmental catastrophe. But what if there’s another purpose at play?

Rejecting International Assistance
Let’s walk through what I consider some critical mistakes by the administration. Not in plugging the damn hole, but in helping to protect our environment and coastline from the oil.

April 20: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explodes, and oil begins gushing into the ocean.

April 23: The Dutch, who have experience cleaning up oil, offer ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposes a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. It’s been reported that these ships can remove 20,000 tons of oil and sludge per day from the ocean. According to Geert Visser, the counsul general for the Netherlands: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’”.

May 5: The State Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept “in the next two days”. Two weeks later, it said it did not need any of them.

May 19: The administration has continued to leave BP in charge of both plugging the hole and the cleanup of the oil. When asked about the international offers, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters “We’ll let BP decide what expertise they do need.”

Does that sound like the administration is in charge as they’ve often proclaimed?

At one point (unclear of the date), Coast Guard Lt. Commander Christopher T. O’Neil said that “all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted.” But this is hugely misleading. There is an old law on the books called the Jones Act which limits foreign vessels from engaging in certain activities in our waters. In comparison, on day four after Katrina, then President Bush through an executive order waived the Jones Act so that we could accept international offers of aid. President Obama has chosen not to do this, thus most of the offers for aid are not “qualifying offers”. Countries have offered ships, skimmers and booms. Other countries have offered chemical dispersants that help to break down the oil in the water. BP was willing to contribute $360 million to help pay for sand berms to protect Louisiana, but this too was rejected because they were not “qualifying offers”.

A Precedent has Been Set
President Obama already has a record of saying one thing, but doing another. This certainly is not uncommon for a politician. It’s been clear since Obama took office that the economy and jobs have never been high on his priority list. The Stimulus Bill provided little stimulus. The administration said it would save and create jobs. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) said that by 2011, the bill would have NO net affect on job creation. IBD (Investors Business Daily) predicted that it would make things worse. That it was just a big government spending bill. The administration pushed it through, and things have gotten worse. It appears to me that IBD was correct.

One of the first posts I wrote for this blog was about how Cash for Clunkers was a green program, and not a stimulus program as it was often described by the administration.

And the administration continues to press for legislation that will hurt our recovery such as cap and trade.

The administration has said that jobs are their top priority, but they’ve done little to help the economy. And much of their legislative agenda will do just the opposite.

The administration has said they’ve done everything possible to protect our coastline and environment from the oil, but the facts indicate otherwise.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Whatever Remains, However Improbable, Must be the Truth
I have repeatedly commented on what I have seen as a lack of leadership from President Obama. My criticisms began long before this crisis. And I still contend that Obama is a poor executive. Many of my liberal friends continue to tell me I’m wrong. So why has he not waived the Jones Act? Why have we rejected numerous offers of aid when it’s clear that we need the help? Why has he left BP in charge of the cleanup for so long? Can you explain this to me?

President Obama is a smart man. He is surrounded by smart people. They have a reason for their actions, and their inactions.

If it’s not poor leadership, then what is it? Is the administration using this crisis to push their own agenda? By their own words, it is clear that they are.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now… (B)ut only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment.”

Would the administration intentionally drag their feet and ignore opportunities to help cleanup the oil to further exasperate the crisis? I have a very difficult time believing that ANY President would do this. But I’m also have a hard time attributing all of these decisions to poor leadership. I’m beginning to fear that to further the cause of green energy, we have intentionally let this crisis spin out of control. It paints an ugly picture.

A Favor
So what favor do I ask, particularly of my liberal friends? Tell me why my fears are wrong. Persuade me that there’s another purpose, a reasonable plan, for why we have rejected these offers of international aid. I want to believe. I’m just finding it tough at the moment.

And as Spock would say, “Live long, and prosper”.

Before we get into the blame game, let me make it clear that BP is the primary culprit in the current catastrophe. Nothing I’m about to write is intended to alleviate BP of any of their responsibility. But truthfully, there’s a LOT of blame to go around. Time magazine listed “The Dirty Dozen: Who to Blame for the Oil Spill”. They got much of it right. They threw a lot of people under the bus, including you and me. I’m good with that. But they missed two groups that share a significant portion of the blame. Below is their list, and their reasoning behind their inclusions to the list. (Click here for the full post from Time.) And then the two groups that SHOULD have been included on their list.

1. John Browne: Former CEO of BP because he’s accused of “cost-cutting” at BP prior to stepping down in 2007.
2. Tony Hayward: CEO of BP when the the oil leak occurred.
3. Chris Oynes: Interior Department official who oversaw the MMS until he retired at the end of May.
4. Doug Suttles: BP’s COO.
5. George Bush: too cozy with the oil industry.
6. Dick Cheney: too cozy with the oil industry.
7. The American Driver: 200 million people driving 250 million passenger vehicles.
8. Barack Obama: because he “proposed” opening new tracts for oil production prior to the crisis. (This is the one in particular that I disagree with their reasoning, and a clear indication of Time’s bias.)
9. Ken Salazar: Obama’s Interior Secretary who oversees the MMS.
10. S. Elizabeth Birnbaum: Obama’s pick to run the MMS until she was ousted on May 27th.
11. Steve Newman: CEO of Transocean, the company that owns the Deepwater Horizon rig.
12. Tim Probert: President of Halliburton, the contractor responsible for cementing the well.

Personally I find two huge omissions from this list. And the fact that a left-leaning publication like Time would miss on these does not surprise me.

Congress and White House
We’ve already thrown millions of Americans under the bus, why not Congress and the White House too? And not just this Congress and the White House, but everyone who has served in Congress and the White House since 1982. Why 1982? Because “In 1982 Congress passed the ‘Federal Oil & Gas Royalty Management Act‘ which mandates protection of the environment and conservation of federal lands in the course of  building oil and gas facilities. The Secretary of the Interior designated the MMS as the administrative agency responsible for the mineral leasing of submerged OCS lands and for the supervision of offshore operations after lease issuance.” This is quoted directly from the MMS website.

What does this mean? That in 1982, Congress in their infinite wisdom, put one department in charge of collecting royalties AND providing oversight to the oil industry. They collect BILLIONS from the oil companies that go into the coffers of our government. Not to mention the corruption that has existed in this department for many years. How come our politicians never seem to understand that such an incestuous situation is a REALLY bad idea until it’s too late? Every member of Congress and every member of the White House that has allowed for this kind of situation to occur since 1982 bares some responsibility for the current catastrophe. And they run a VERY CLOSE SECOND to BP for allowing this crisis to occur.

Why did Time miss this? Because Congress in the ’80s was controlled by the left.

One of the few things President Obama has done right since this occurred was to split up the responsibilities of the MMS. Good job Mr. President.

Environmentalists
Yep. Throwing all of us environmentalists under the bus too. Why? Because oil companies DO NOT want to drill in the deep sea when safer locations could be made available to them. The President in his address to the nation the other night said that one of the reasons we need to move away from oil dependency is because we’re running out of places to drill, and that is why we’re drilling so far out into the ocean. This is misleading and disingenuous. We’ve told the oil companies that we need more oil, but have prohibited them from drilling in much safer locations such as ANWR and shallow waters where the chance of such a catastrophe would be incredibly minimized. The compromise that we’ve made is that we’ll allow oil companies to drill further out into the ocean so that we don’t have to see the oil rigs. But the deeper we drill, the greater the risk. And now this compromise has come back to bite us all in the ass. (Yes, ass is still my favorite cuss word.)

Why did Time miss blaming the environmentalists? Because many on the far left don’t want ANY domestic drilling. And Time’s reasoning for including Obama on this list (because he dared to possibly allow MORE drilling) clearly displays their bias against oil production and consumption.

Have we thrown everyone under the bus now? I hope so.

The President will address the nation tonight about the BP oil spill. Never one to let a crisis go to waste, here are my predictions on his main points tonight.

Legislation: The President will discuss legislation that he wants Congress to act upon. Likely to include our new “green economy” and “stricter regulations” for oil companies.

Taxation: Prepare for increased taxes on the oil companies. Which of course will create higher prices for us.

Investigation: The President and his staff will consider criminal charges against BP.

It is also expected that he will urge BP to create an account that will be used to help businesses and people who have been adversely affected by this crisis. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter signed by 54 Democratic senators to BP demanding that they create a $20 billion account to pay for economic damages and cleanup costs.

The President will also try to explain how his administration acted quickly and has done everything within their power to cope with the catastrophe, but news reports are beginning to spring up outlining all the ways the administration failed to accept help from other countries. Here are a few quotes from DickMorris.com:

The president’s tardy requests for international assistance and his government’s bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially “saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.” Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th “we’ll let BP decide what expertise they do need.”

Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept “in the next two days.” Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.

Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada’s offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.

Why didn’t the Administration act sooner?

Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.

Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O’Neil said that “all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted.” But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act – an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans – disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.

A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA – more bureaucracy.

When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to “the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares…BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies – which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms — objected to foreign companies’ participation.”

Read the full article here.

The President has continued to compound his mistakes by failing to recognize how to handle a crisis. The President is a legislator and litigator by nature, thus his desire for new legislation and regulations in the face of this catastrophe. But what we need is leadership, and we’re getting precious little of it from this administration.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the word “ass”. I don’t cuss often, but when I do, it generally involves the word “ass”. Such as “Sean Hannity is really an ass” or “These brownies really kick ass”. But I found the use of the word “ass” by the President very interesting on a number of levels. I don’t disapprove of President Obama using the word “ass”, though in the same situation (in a national television interview), I believe that I would have refrained from using the word “ass”. I don’t find it very presidential. Though here in my blog, I feel pretty free to use the word “ass” as much as I want.

Ass.

The President has come under fire from both the left and the right in his handling of BP’s oil spill. Most polls have shown a majority of Americans disapproving of the President’s handling of the spill. I have some other thoughts to share about this catastrophe, but they’ll have to wait till a later post. Personally, I think much of the criticism of Obama is unfair and misdirected.

So what does the President using the word “ass” have to do with a lack of leadership? Nothing. And a lot.

Plug the Damn Hole
I think that most of us understand that BP is doing everything it can to “plug the damn hole”. It’s in their own self interest to stop the flow of oil as quickly as possible. They are taking a huge hit financially and politically for this mess. As they should. But there’s really very little our federal government can do to help. They can oversee. They can consult. They can bring in experts outside of BP to contribute ideas. And they’ve done all of that. Maybe not in as timely a manner as many would have liked, but even if they had done these things from day one, the hole would still be gushing oil into the ocean.

Cleaning Up the Mess
This is certainly where our federal government should have been much more responsive. But this just again outlines how a huge bureaucracy finds it difficult to respond to any emergency quickly and efficiently. While the feds can’t plug the damn hole, they can certainly be providing more assistance to the states that will be affected by the oil. You want to be critical of the administration? Well, it’s fair to criticize the administration’s response to cleaning up this mess. They’ve allowed BP way too much authority to handle the cleanup on their own, and have not been nearly supportive enough of the needs of the states.

Anger on the Left, Empathy on the Right
People like James Carville and Spike Lee have criticized Obama’s response, and in particular, have criticized the President for not getting “angry” enough. Critics on the right have accused Obama of not having enough empathy for those affected by this tragedy. This has been a pretty hot topic in the media, but this is mostly a media driven story. And derails us from the real issues at hand.

Displaying anger or empathy does not a leader make. We have had many great leaders in our country’s history. Many of them have been emotional. And many of them have been stoic. One of my early and continuing criticisms of Obama has been his lack of leadership abilities. More on this in a moment. President Obama could have flown down to Louisiana at the beginning of this mess, railed on BP, and shown empathy for those who are being affected by the spill, but that’s not leadership. That’s theatrics. It might have played well with his supporters and the media, but would have accomplished little else.

You know what would have been more helpful and played even better? Leadership.

“So I know whose ass to kick,” said President Obama
OK, back to President Obama’s quote during his interview on NBC’s “Today” show. Why did he use the word “ass”? It wasn’t by accident. It was very much said with a purpose. The administration, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, have been attempting to explain to the press for weeks how angry the President is over the spill. They’ve talked about how they have the boot on BP’s neck. How the President has told BP to “plug the damn hole”. The President’s use of the word “ass” was intended to show his anger, and appease his critics. It’s spin control, nothing more.

But does a leader use the word “ass” to appease his critics? The President is incredibly thin skinned, and reactive to criticism. Not one of his more endearing traits. And not a trait of a leader.

I had a conversation with a close friend shortly after Obama was elected. I was attempting to convey the reasons I believe that Obama is not a good leader. My friend, a devout liberal, said “I feel very well lead”. Just because you like the direction we’re going, doesn’t make the President a good leader. You might want to go to a concert. A friend may drive you to the concert. You might like the concert. That doesn’t make your friend a good driver. I have spent a lot of time studying leadership and the traits of great leaders. I have seen little of these traits in President Obama. (I wrote about Obama’s failure of leadership in Healthcare Reform here.)

Media Misdirection
So what has been the latest storyline in the press about all of this? Instead of diving into why the President used the word “ass”, and why he’s being criticized by both the left and the right, the media has now made this a racial issue. Several columnists and pundits have commented how the President must be careful displaying his anger so that he’s not labeled an “angry black man”. And the media has run with it. Really? That’s the story here?

Let’s make this clear. Most of us do not care that President Obama is black. We do not view him as a “black” President. We just view him as the President. Those who would buy into Obama as an “angry black man” are the same bigots who refuse to support him because he’s black in the first place. Luckily, that’s a small percentage of our population.

Got this today from one of our industry publications. Seems to fit in well with my general complaint of government over-stepping and attempting to save us from ourselves, despite the cost.

The California Assembly has voted to prohibit grocery, liquor, convenience and drug stores from offering customers plastic bags, taking a significant step toward enacting the strongest legislation of its kind in the U.S. The bill, which passed the Assembly in a 41-27 vote, still requires approval by the state’s Senate. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already said he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Not only does the California bill place a ban on plastic bags, it also requires customers to be charged for using store-provided paper bags. The legislation is considered even more sweeping than an ordinance passed in San Francisco in 2007, which requires supermarkets and large drug stores to offer customers bags made only of recyclable paper, cloth or plastic that can be turned into compost.

The highly controversial bill has clear supporters and opponents. For example, the American Chemistry Council, which has feverishly lobbied against similar bans, insists the bill would serve as a $1 billion tax and threaten 500 jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing business. Conversely, many environmental groups and the California Grocers Association, are backing the bill, believing it would positively affect consumer behavior. Bill proponents also say California taxpayers spend about $25 million every year picking up and disposing of plastic bags.

If approved by the California Senate, the plastic bag ban could go into effect as early as January 2012. California would become the first state in the country to enact such a law.

Our national debt has now passed $13 trillion, and will surpass $14 trillion before the year is over. That is just amazing to me. Take a look below at the escalation of our national debt in recent years, and notice the huge jumps during the last few time periods.

So what does this mean? Nothing good, I guarantee you that. A ballooning national debt will be a significant drag on our economic recovery, and could be partially responsible for driving us into another recession — what many refer to as a double-dip recession.

A Look Back
In 1990 our national debt was approximately $3.2 trillion. Despite the strong economic times of the ’90s, our national debt grew to approximately $5.6 trillion by 2000. That’s an increase of 75% over a ten year period. While that seems like a lot to me, that’s by far our best decade since 1960-70 where our debt increased by only 31%.

In comparison, from 1970 to 1980, our national debt more than doubled from $381 billion to $909 billion. And from 1980 to 1990, our debt increased more than threefold from $909 billion to $3.2 trillion. (During the ’80s, Reagan was spending tons of money on the military, and the democratically controlled Congress was spending tons of money on everything else. The ’80s were an interesting economic period that we can discuss at a later time.)

Now let’s look at what’s been going on this last decade. From 2000 to 2010, our national debt will have increased from $5.6 trillion to approximately $14.4 trillion, though that’s still an estimated figure. It could end up higher than this. That’s almost a tripling of our national debt in only 10 years.

Finger Pointing
This is why I don’t like either party. The Republicans like to pretend that they’re the party of financial discipline, but while they largely controlled Congress from 2000 to 2006, our debt grew from $5.6 trillion to $8.4 trillion. While not a booming economy, this was certainly a period of steady growth. There’s no good excuse for increasing our national debt by 50% during this six year period.

The Democrats condemned the Republicans as fiscally irresponsible. So what has happened since they took control of Congress in 2006? Our national debt is expected to balloon to $14.4 trillion by year’s end. They’re close to doubling our debt in only four years. Add to that another whopping increase anticipated over the next five years of approximately $5 trillion. By 2015, it’s expected that our national debt will be approximately $20 trillion.

The Recession
Democrats are going to write to me and tell me I’m wrong. That our national debt is ballooning because of the recession caused by Bush, and that recessions reduce tax receipts to the federal government. And they’re partially right. Recessions DO decrease tax receipts. (We can debate at another time the primary causes of this recession — Bush was only a piece of the puzzle that was built over the last 20 years that caused this recession.) But that’s why we MUST pay off debt during periods of economic growth. A small level of deficit spending during a recession is needed, in my opinion. You can’t shut down federal programs that our public relies on for everyday life. That’s why I do not support a balanced budget amendment. But the only way deficit spending during a recession makes sense is when you’re paying OFF the debt during periods of economic growth.

So why do I say that they’re partially right? Because the out of control spending from our federal government is HURTING our economy, not helping it. And by hurting the economy, they have further exasperated the problem of reduced tax receipts to the federal government.

What To Do
They’ve got to get spending under control. It will be painful, but it can be accomplished. Some economists are predicting a lost decade. That we can’t return to economic prosperity any time soon. I say they’re wrong, but I’m an optimist at heart.

It’s time to retire Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise of the ’90s. Actually, it’s long overdue. I have been very pleased to see President Obama and Congress proceed with the repeal of this legislation. And I think it’s smart for them to proceed as they are, in a measured and methodical manner. Last night, according to CNN.com: “The U.S. House and a Senate committee approved amendments to a military bill Thursday that would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service, but only after some conditions are met.”

See the full CNN story here.

While the Republicans are on the public’s side of many recent polls, this is one where they find themselves largely out of step with public sentiment. According to a recent CNN poll, 78% of respondents said that “people who are openly gay or homosexual” should be able to serve in the armed forces. But these numbers are nothing new. The results are similar to what CNN found in December of 2008 (81%) and May of 2007 (79%).

But if you look at the votes yesterday, Republicans in Congress obviously do not support the repeal. From CNN: “The Senate committee’s vote on the amendment was mostly partisan, with 15 Democrats and one Republican — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — supporting the compromise repeal language. The House vote also was along largely partisan lines, with 229 Democrats and five Republicans supporting the repeal amendment, while 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats opposed it.”

It’s time for Republicans to wake up and understand that we want equal protections and rights for all Americans.

Polls are interesting, but it is important to understand that they’re only a snapshot in time. And polls can be misleading. Take it from a marketing professional, how a question is phrased can certainly impact the responses given. The polls that I tend to read the most are the ones that are repeated over time — the tracking polls. Even if there’s an element of bias built in to the poll — intentional or unintentional — the trend over time is still revealing. Here are a few recent poll numbers I’ve found interesting.

63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan
As news continues to trickle out about the health care plan, such as the CBO’s recent revision of the costs associated with the bill, support for repeal of the plan continues to rise. According to Rasmussen Reports, 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the health care plan, the highest level ever.

From the same poll, “33% of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. 55% say it will be bad for the nation. Only 3% think it will have no impact.”

Generic Congressional Ballot, Republicans Hold 8-point Lead
In Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot, Republican candidates now hold an eight-point lead over Democrats. These numbers have been fairly consistent for several months. “While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support their own party, the plurality (41%) of voters not affiliated with either major party now prefer the Republican candidate, while 20% like the Democrat.”

Obama’s Job Approval Numbers
Virtually all of the major polling firms has a presidential approval tracking poll. Real Clear Politics does an average across all of the major polls, and according to RCP, Obama’s favorables are at 47.9, and unfavorables are at 46.4.

64% Favor Offshore Drilling
I think this is the number that surprised me the most. According to Rasmussen: “Despite the major oil rig leak that continues to spew an estimated 5,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico, the majority of U.S. voters still support offshore oil drilling. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows 64% believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed, up from 58% earlier this month.”

“If we can’t live together we’re going to die alone.”
Jack Shepherd

My LOST journey began with the final episode from season one. I happened to catch it the week before the premier of season two. I was instantly hooked. I went back and watched all of the episodes from season one while watching the new episodes from season two. It’s the only TV series that I’ve watched every single episode. One by one, my family became hooked as well. Beginning last summer we started from the beginning and watched (or for me re-watched) all of the episodes in order to prepare for this, the final season.

The storytelling from season one in particular was incredible. The character development unparalleled in television. Possibly among the best throughout all of literature in the last century.

Many could not overcome the science fiction components of the story. The unexplained phenomenon. I was happy to embrace the unknown.

Like so many losties, I became lost in the story. But in a good way. I enjoyed the journey. Enjoyed the speculation. Enjoyed the revelations about the island. And enjoyed watching the ongoing development of the characters.

My initial reaction last night to “The End” was a bit unsettling. It wasn’t as fulfilling as I’d hoped. What was the purpose of the light? What was the real name of the man in black? What about the delicate balance between good and evil? After all, the island and the ancient tale of good and evil was the story. I felt like I was left twisting in the wind. I had become so lost in the journey, that I had forgotten the real story.

This was not the story of a fantastic and magical island. The island was only a vehicle to tell the story. This was a story of redemption. The story of Jack Shepherd.

Jack was a lost soul when the series began. The reluctant hero. The man of science who eventually became the man of faith. The reluctant hero who eventually embraced his destiny without understanding what his destiny truly meant. A story of salvation. And finally, a story of redemption.

“If we can’t live together we’re going to die alone.”
Jack Shepherd

Jack and all of our heroes learned to live together. And in the end, they did not die alone.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, watching politics is like watching a contact sport. It’s certainly not for the faint of heart. There are so many sides to the Arizona immigration story that’s it’s difficult to know where to start. So I’m going to try to hit on some of the highlights.

Calderon Criticizes the Law
We’ve watched our own public officials criticize the law (more on this in a moment) but I found it pretty nauseating to watch Mexico’s President Calderon criticize the Arizona immigration law in front of Congress, and then receive a standing ovation from the democrats, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. How out of touch are the democrats with the sentiments of most Americans? Clearly, a lot.

Read the Damn Law
And what I found even more nauseating this last week was that both Holder and Napolitano admitted that they have not taken the time to read the law, though both have continued to criticize it. Holder has even threatened a potential federal lawsuit against Arizona. Here I am, a little blogger from Kansas, and before posting my own comments on the law a couple weeks ago, the first thing I did was I READ THE LAW! In a recent FoxNews Opinion Dynamics Poll, 83% of Americans found it “shocking” that Holder admitted in front of the House Judiciary Committee that he had taken a stand against the law despite not having read the bill.

Out of Step with Americans
The majority of Americans support a state’s rights to pass laws like the Arizona immigration law. And when you dive in deeper, you find that 84% of Americans, including 75% of democrats, favor “requiring people to show documents proving their immigration status if government officials have reasonable cause to ask for them”. (From the same FoxNews poll.) So while many democrats say they oppose the bill, most of them actually favor the underlying principle.

Supreme Court has Already Ruled on This
One more surprise I learned this week: the Supreme Court has already ruled on reasonable suspicion and immigration status. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a UNANIMOUS decision in Muehler v. Mena, found that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights — provided that person is already lawfully detained. Why has this not received more news coverage?

And since Arizona has made some changes in their bill, the guidelines in the Arizona bill are now stricter than the federal law they intended to duplicate.

Highlights from the Poll
These are from the same FoxNews poll:
• 76% believe that the security along our borders is not strict enough
• 65% believe that a state has the right to pass laws on immigration and to protect its borders
• 65% favor allowing local and state law enforcement to question anyone they think are in the country illegally
• 76% favor allowing local and state police to detain anyone who cannot prove their immigration status

And in case you don’t like the FoxNews poll, here are some numbers from Rasmussen:
• 55% of voters nationwide favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state
• 69% believe a police officer should be REQUIRED to check immigration status of anyone stopped for a traffic violation
• 55% say they agree more with political leaders in Arizona than they do the political leaders in Washington
• 71% in Arizona support the state law

The Politics
It really makes you scratch your head sometimes. Why do the leaders in Congress and in the White House seem so far out of step with public sentiment? It’s hard to justify their position. The law is clearly against them. And the people are clearly against them on this issue. The only conclusion I can come up with as that they’re attempting to energize their base (the left) for the upcoming elections in November. The right is clearly energized due to health care reform and out of control spending. So maybe this is the issue that energizes the left? I really don’t know.