Tuesday's onslaughts on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are being likened to Pearl Harbor, and the comparison is just. From the point of view of the assailants, the attacks were near miracles of logistical calculation, timing, courage in execution and devastation inflicted upon the targets. Not in terms of destructive extent, but in terms of symbolic obliteration the attack is virtually without historic parallel, a trauma at least as great as the San Francisco earthquake or the Chicago fire.

There may be another similarity to Pearl Harbor. The possibility of a Japanese attack in early December of 1941 was known to U.S. Naval Intelligence and to President Roosevelt. Last Tuesday, derision at the failure of U.S. intelligence was widespread. The Washington Post quoted an unnamed top official at the National Security Council as saying, "We don't know anything here. We're watching CNN, too." Are we to believe that the $30 billion annual intelligence budget, immense electronic eavesdropping capacity and thousands of agents around the world produced nothing in the way of a warning? In fact, Osama bin Laden, now a prime suspect, said in an

The current uproar over the posture of the Bush administration on global warming and, most recently, on power plant emissions vividly illustrates the political hypocrisy and opportunism imbuing debates on environmental issues.

First take global warming. The charge that the current phase of global warming can be attributed to greenhouse gases generated by humans and their livestock is an article of faith among liberals as sturdy as missile defense is among the conservative crowd. The Democrats have seized on the issue of global warming as indicative of President Bush's willful refusal to confront a global crisis that properly agitates all of America's major allies. Almost daily the major green groups reap rich political capital (and donations) on the issue.

Yet the so-called "anthropogenic origin" of global warming remains entirely non-proven. Back in the spring of this year, even the International Panel on Climate Change, which now has a huge stake in arguing the "caused-by-humans" thesis, admits in its Summary that there could be a one in three chance its multitude of experts are wrong. A subsequent report issued under the

AUSTIN, Texas -- The Mexican truck debate is a pip because it reveals so much about globalization and its attendant problems.

I have a dog in this fight: I live nestled on the shores of I-35, the main route north from Mexico, and spend a lot of time driving up and down it. To say that NAFTA trucks are already a problem is like calling a dwarf short. Driving south from Waco Tuesday night, I counted over 300 of them stacked up in one traffic jam.

This silly circus of a debate continues, with charges of isolationism and protectionism being volleyed back and forth, unmoored from reality in the ideological void. Look, if the windmill is running, the wind is blowing. Here's the question: Have you ever spent much time in Mexico? Pretty much answers the Mexican truck question, don't you think?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a national organization looking out for us critters throughout the world. Below is an excerpt from their website about what I believe is an important animal rights issue that many people never considered -- are the animals at the circus happy? Are they actually having fun? Or are they tortured, abused, humiliated and forced to do unnatural acts? There is a growing list of circuses that do not use animals for this very reason. If humans want to dress in sparkly costumes and spin by their teeth high up in air, or wear oversized shoes and noses and squirt water at each other - let them. Leave us out of it!

PETA’s Report

In contrast to the glitter associated with circuses, performing animals’ lives are pretty miserable. Because animals do not naturally ride bicycles, stand on their heads, or jump through rings of fire, whips, electric prods, and other tools are often used to force them to perform. The smaller and poorer the circus, the more limited the animals’ access may be to water, food, and veterinary care.

As difficult as it is for me to admit, I’m getting old. Some say that our social culture repeats itself about every twenty years or so. If that’s the case I now have to realize that I’m experiencing déjà vu for the second time around. Such is the case when I look at our new form of civil disobedience. You see, I remember the sit-ins and the shut ins. I remember the marching and the social justice rebellion of the 60’s, the me generation rebellion of the 80’s and now the hi-tech low risk civil obedient disobedience of the new millennium. From the hippies to the yuppies, buppies and now techies, it has all been some sort of call for a shift in the social paradigm. Though today’s form of civil disobedience is a far cry from the Montgomery boycott, the march on Washington, Woodstock or hostile takeovers (yes hostile takeovers were a form of rebellion), there are still some vague similarities that exist.