Danica Patrick, after dropping out of high school, electing to take a GED test instead, and moving to England, slipped her way into the IRL and into the national spotlight. It has been widely accepted that her appearance in IRL events is, for the most part, a mild attempt at publicity for an oft-incon####uous sport. Yes, Patrick was just the con####uousness that IndyCar needed, and apparently, is going to hold on to after Patrick denied any plans of switching over to NASCAR.

Naturally, if Danica wanted to make such a move, NASCAR fans and media enthusiasts alike would support the move emphatically -- putting together their early predictions for which NASCAR events Danica would win, and how the move would benifit her incalculably. Nevermind the fact that her qualifications are imperceptible, nevermind that she has never finished above 4th in an IndyCar event, nevermind that her greatest career accomplishment was leading at Indianapolis -- Patrick's move would be insanely agreed-upon. And why not? She harbors public attention, is an excellent media incentive, and helps IndyCar brush-off the notion that it discriminates against certain individuals. And while some people concur that certain sports should be exclusively men -- just ask Keith Hernandez -- the including of Patrick certainly plasters the word 'humanitarian' accross the face of IndyCar Racing in the eyes of most.

Really -- who cares about the repercussions? Right? The United States certainly applies this philosophy.

The great John Lennon once said, "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace." The great George Bush once said, "#### Saddam, we're taking him out," more than a year before invading Iraq. The great #### Cheney once said about the possibility of a War in Iraq, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries," on the topic of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The always reliable Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz once said, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." White House Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August," when asked about why Bush watied until after Labor Day to convince the American public that the War in Iraq was warranted. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Then, in June of that year (2003) said, "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." And to top it off, when asked about the number of Iraqi insurgents, he said, ""I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on July 9, 2003, said, "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

What sad times these are when musicians, known drug-addicts, make more sense than the politicians who we put in the White House. The fact of the matter is, Bush was much more rational before he was in control of our country; during his campaign in 2000 Bush told voters in the second presidential debate that, "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" It's a shame that people will simply say anything to disagree with what another one says, or to promote himself in the public eye. So why would a man who upheld such beliefs invade Iraq? Perhaps his interview with Pat Robertson shed some light. When Robertson advised Bush to prepare the public for casualties in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

This, my friends, is the rationale the US leaders use when justifying wars. Presidents who showed some semblance of intelligence while campagning elect to leave that intelligence behind and do whatever it is they "feel like" doing. No -- strike that -- whatever "God told them to do". Once again, quoting Bush (June 2003), "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." If any normal American were to say something of the sort, he or she would be ostracized in society and, most likely, shipped off to an asylum for mental treatment -- when George Bush says it, we re-elect him. The strong political winds of nationalism that Bush has done an excellent job in swaying in his favor blind Americans of their prudence and leave behind the scent of gunpowder and the sound of the World Trade Centers collapsing.

And I reiterate how ironic it is that the man who put this reasoning in the best words is Bush, himself. It's our own involvment in affairs that are none of this country's business which prompted the 9/11 attacks, couple that with our own negligence of homeland security -- or perhaps, the allowance of such attacks to occur, as former American military analyst, Daniel Ellsberg believes -- and what you have is a massive tragedy. What's more, the fact that this tragedy was used to manipulate the minds of millions of Americans brings the legitimacy of the attacks themselves into question.

To say that the government told the public about every aspect of 9/11 would be naive. What the American public does see is the incessantly-replayed images of the World Trade Centers crashing towards the ground, thousands of people trapped within -- the images of people leaping from the windows of their 80th-story windows. What the American public doesn't hear about are the four hijackers who are still alive-and-well. What we don't hear about are the pilots, who couldn't even control small propeller aircrafts, according to their instructors, flying massive commercial airliners at the height of a lawn-mower. We don't hear about the fact that the World Trade Centers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 jet-liner which is nearly the same size, and travels 100 mph faster than the 767's which hit the towers. We don't hear about the 81 eye-witnesses, including more than 20 trained firefighters stationed around the buildings, who heard explosions 20 seconds before the Center's collapse. The fact that, as Lieutenant-Fireman Paul Isaac Jr. said, "Many firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid the discussion of this fact." The fact that CIA director Robert Woosley reported that, "There were definitely bombs in those buildings." The fact that never in the history of the world has a steel-framed building EVER collapsed due to fire, and despite this, somehow, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was just outside the World Trade Center building, was warned that "the World Trade Centers are going to collapse, we must leave now." And that, even though such information was, apparently, available, it was not told to the firemen who died inside of the buildings when they collapsed. The public was told that there existed no video footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon; however, a few years later, the government releases frames from a security camera which show the blurred image of something hitting the Pentagon. The footage which the FBI siezed, a matter of seconds after the attack, telling those who had viewed it to never discuss what they had seen. We don't hear about the rehearsal of the attacks on the Pentagon in the Mass Casualty planning exercise in 2000. We don't hear about the fact that Hani Hanjour, the "pilot" of the plane which hit the Pentagon was pulled over for speeding in August of 2001, three-weeks-later, he sent a check in for $100 to pay the ticket and court charges. Yes, this is the same suicidal maniac, the one who finds our government to be evil, who sent this check.

In 1998, Payne Stewart, a professional golfer, was aboard his private jet -- when his pilots stopped responding to Air Traffic Controllers, five F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to the location of his jet within 18 minutes, even though Stewart was flying in a very rural area. American flight 11 took an unexpected turn at 8:28 PM and hit the first Trade Center 27 minutes later; the second flight, which hit tower #2, went off course 35 minutes before crashing. An Air Force Base rests 71 miles away from the World Trade Centers -- F-16's can fly at speeds in excess of 1500 mph, it would have taken 150-210 seconds to get to the towers. Oh -- and flight 77 flew within 8 miles of the White House, where there are Anti-Aircraft guns which can fire heat-seeking missiles up to 18 miles.

All coincidences, the government contended, just before they used the attacks as justification for an invasion on foreign soil. After easing the spirits of Americans, they gently made their way over into Iraq, which had absolutely no connections with the 9/11 attacks, and began to dictate which type of government the country should be run-under. And we wonder why much of the world express much displeasure over our actions? If we are really the "peace-makers" which we claim to be, why aren't we in Africa, where thousands of people are the victim of mass-genocide and extreme starvation? Oh yeah, forgot -- God told President Bush to invade Iraq. Isn't it great how well we elevate the standard of separation of church and state?

While the rest of the world slowly becomes enraged by our arrogance, we sit back, planning out the future of another country's government -- maybe we should force them all to learn English. Wait, then we could no longer use the excuse that it's difficult to decipher between civilian and Iraqi military men to explain the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

We condemn communist governments for trying to forcefully impose their form of government unto other countries; but, it's perfectly fine for the United States to do so -- because democracy is "right". I wonder how this country would react if another Army invaded our country, began to re-develop our government while killing and raping citizens of our country.

What the United States is doing gives the impression that we are all a bunch of self-serving hypocrites who care only that another country have the democratic form of government. One has to imagine how much longer the US's superiority is going to last, dealing out potentially trillions (yes, that's trillions, with a 't' and an 's') in Social Security and pension and welfare while spending billions on wars to change governments and angering many other countries in doing so.

According to a report by WorldNetDaily, "A newly published paper by a researcher for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns that a ballooning budget deficit and pension and welfare timebomb is growing into a $65.9 trillion fiscal gap that will force the United States into bankruptcy." Professor Laurence Kotlikoff says, "One way to wrap one's head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent."

With such an impending doom on the horizon -- politically, economically, and militarily -- one can only hope that the government will come to its senses soon, otherwise, this great country's tenure may just be coming to an abrupt end.

Sources:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
ICLE_ID=51078
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03
.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/polit
ics/main646142.shtml
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a
/iraqquotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Patrick

http://www.911review.org/

There was a good amount of response to my earlier article about Paul Dana.  Enough to consititue a follow-up on my thoughts and beliefs about racing.

Paul Dana was a sports writer out of college, let's keep that clarified.  His death was a trajedy and is, in my mind, acknowledging the major aspects of racing that are missed by many.

While the real story of that day remains with Paul Dana -- the best explanation that we can make out is pointed-out by a former Indy 500 winner.  "He just didn't know what the hell he was doing," said the former champion.

It is asked by Ultra in one of his comments to the former article as to whether Dana was a good racer -- and the answer is the reality of it all.  Dana was in over his head.

It has been noted by some columnists that Dana starting competing in small formula racing in the later 1990's, while he was still covering the CART series in Autoweek Magazine.  He was writing about Michael Andretti and Al Unser Jr., and the next month, he wold be competing against them at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

It's too easy to get into racing now -- it's about your marketability rather than your talent.  Pointed out by Robin Miller, "In USAC's glory days of the '50s-'60s-'70s, it was damn tough to get a national big car license, as it was called.  A driver had to spend a few years in midgets or sprints, then run Trenton, Phoenix and Milwaukee in an Indy car and then be 'nominated' by a USAC star in order to be allowed to take his ROOKIE TEST at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway."  And Miller shares my viewpoint on this matter -- the balance of marketing and driving, which no longer exists.

Why do you think that Dana replaced Vitor Meira on Rahal's team?  Not because he was the better of the two drivers, but because he brought the huge sponsorship of Ethanol.  Miller continues, "Paul Dana certainly wasn't the first or the worst to ever buy his way into an Indy car.  We've seen Patrick Bedard, Dale Whittington, Jack Miler, Paul Jasper, Dennis Vitolo, Randy Lewis, Lyn St. James .... there's a long list of people who were much better at marketing than they were at driving."  And how right Robin is.

Veteran racers knew that Dana had little experience and was not qualified enough to be racing at that level, according to Miller, "He lacked the miles of high speed experience necessary to drive one of those IRL missles in close quarters."  And, as we all know with experience comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes insticts.  Instincts like looking down the track for trouble.

Dana was a terrible loss and a tragic story.  Those who say that the drivers know the risk when they step into a vehicle -- the risk of death -- and then watch the races merely to "see the crashes" are hypocrits.  And plus, Dana wasn't a driver, he was a sportswriter.

Paul Dana.  A terrible story for IRL Racing and for sports in general.  Dana died during a practice run on March 27, 2006 -- smashing into the disabled car of Ed Carpenter.  Telemetry has shown that Dana was going about 176 mph when he struck Carpenter's car, and that he began braking only tenths of a second before the collision.  Why Dana didn't brake may remain a mystery for eternity -- only Paul will know the real events that occured that day.

Paul was a great man, many note -- one that was making his attempt at winning IRL's rookie of the year award.  Dana made his debut in 2005 in IRL racing; however, during a practice run, Dana's rookie year was cut short in an accident while Dana was preparing for the Indianpolis 500 -- he broke his spine in two places.

How can the IRL and racing in general live with themselves?  Dana was only thirty years-old.  For those who would criticise him for having a slow reaction time or perhaps not noticing the yellow lights -- you only encourage death -- it's as if you are understanding of the death of a young man.  I invite you to look at the picture.  Look at him, look in his eyes -- what do you see?  I see the life of a young man, a man with a long future in front of him; cut short by a tragedy, a preventable trajedy.  If I look at his smile, I think of what could have been, but never was.  When I listen to his last recorded interview, I hear the voice of someone who should be alive.  It's almost frightening.

A sports writer, like many here, Paul was.  He was married.  Perhaps a future father.  Not to be.

I read the articles -- the ones that are seemingly proud by the fact that "Dana was the first fatality in IRL in three years."  Three years.  Look at the picture again.  Say to yourself, "He was the only driver who has died in the last three years."  Do you feel any better?  Look at the pictures below.  Did these men deserve to die?

Three died in practice runs.  Which is the first thing that should be eliminated from all IRL races, especially on the day of a race.  The next thing to eliminate is the "sport" itself.  To put people at risks like these, and turn on the TV and watch it as entertainment is wrong.  People have told me that they watch racing "for the crashes, they're exciting."  How excited are you today?  How about on the days that these men died?  Is the idea of death exciting to you?  These men should be alive.

In the case of Dana, the IRL decided that his death wasn't important enough to postpone the race.  I can imagine the conversation, "Do you think we should postpone the race?"  "Why?  It's just the death of a thirty year-old, it happens every three years or so."  I want to meet the guy who decided to continue the race.  I wonder if he knew Paul Dana.

If a man's death isn't enough to let you postpone an insignificant race.  If the high risk in your sport isn't enough to get you to think twice.  Then your sport is not a sport -- it's a death wish.  I encourage everyone to take a moment of their time before they go to bed tonight to remember Paul Dana -- keep him in your prayers and in your memories.