Plain as the nose on your face

I'm wondering why hasn't anyone in the public's eye started clamoring for an end to the Iraq War and the overall War on Terror by having our nation use less oil?

Islamic terrorists will continue to threaten us. But if we decrease terrorism's ultimate revenue source, oil, the number of terrorists will decrease proportionally.

I wonder how long it would take for our nation to meet its foreign policy goals in the Middle East after the region's leaders got the message that the world's biggest economy and the biggest oil consumer is serious about using other sources of energy besides oil.

This War on Terror is so needlessly tragic. The jihadists say they just want our nation out of the Middle East. We can't get out of the Middle East since, as our president says, "America is addicted to oil."

Why aren't there solar panels on every rooftop in sunny states? Why aren't there more windfarms? Why aren't we driving more electrical, hybrid or fuel cell powered cars?

Oh yeah, the cost. Well gee, there's a thing called economy of scale. Henry Ford didn't invent the internal combustion engine. There were cars long before the Model T. Ford, however, did come up with the idea for assembly line production, which in turn, made the production of cars cheaper, which in turn, reduced the car's market price, which in turn, made cars affordable for most Americans. Economy of scale.

I'm in the limited government camp. Although I do believe that in some cases national interest supercedes free market principles. If we can reduce terrorism's financing, that's a big national interest in my book and a good enough reason for the federal government to help alternative fuel industries reach economies of scale.

The federal government is already giving away tax write offs for buying alternatively fueled cars. Let's extend the program's sunset date, boost its funding and let's make sure everyone in the country knows about the write offs. Let's get creative. Anything that can reduce our nation's addiction to oil should be one of our government's highest priorities.

President Bush recently signed a $100 billion Iraq War funding bill. Sixty Minutes did a piece in Feb. 2006 which began, "The United States has spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars during its three years in Iraq."

$850 billion in taxpayer money on Iraq. $50 billion of that sum spent on tax breaks for Americans or other programs aimed at reducing oil consumption would have done more to end the Iraq War and the overall War on Terror than anything else except for soldier's equipment.

Yes, ensuring Iraq has electricity, adequate hospitals and other necessary infrastructure is important. But we can help rebuild Iraq'a infrastructe at a fraction of the cost once Iraq is no longer a war zone. And the fastest way to change Iraq's war zone status is to start threatening the livlihoods of Middle Eastern leaders.

If the United States spends $50 billon on reducing its oil consumption, I bet that gets the attention of Middle Eastern leaders.

First, if I'm a bad guy leader who's funding terrorism, I just lost some sales and I don't have as much money to give to my jihadists.

Second, if I'm a good guy leader who's source of riches and power is derived from oil, I start cracking down on jihadists inside my borders because they're bad for business.

But we as a nation barely do anything to threaten a Middle Eastern leader's source of riches and power, so why should we expect any of them to do anything about terrorism? Middle Eastern leaders want to help us because we're the world's remaining superpower and they want to retain good diplomatic relationships with us? Please.

If the United States got serious politically about reducing our dependence on oil, terrorism could be less of a concern and there certainly wouldn't need to be a "war" against it.

Don't think, meat

Perfect little thinktank moment while crushing the pedals during Sunday's Modesto road race. About 10 miles into a 63 mile race, there's a break of three up the road which includes my teammate Peter Allen.

Someone punches it in a crosswind section creating havoc in the peleton. We turn onto a tailwind section, still full hammer mode. Whoever was on front relents for a moment and one of the strongmen left in the field, Bubba Melcher, gets on his bad motor scooter. I jump onto Bubba's wheel and we're off. Bubba pulls at 36 mph for a long time, then lets off the gas just for a second as if to say to me, "well, I ain't draggin' your ass all the way up there."

Before pulling through, I check under my arm and it's "Clean Up! Aisle Six!" Tiny groups of what was once the peleton litter the road like broken eggs on a grocery store floor. My brain starts chewin' on: helping put Bubba into the break would probably cement the break's success, but right now Peter has at least a 33% chance of winning from a break of three. Is Bubba a good addition or bad one?; if I don't help, how likely is Bubba to make it up there on his own?; if Bubba comes back to the pack, he'll certainly launch again, and he'll have other strongmen to help him. Will the break survive that condition?

Pondering those three scenarios in a blink of an eye didn't get me any closer to the answer I sought. So I decide to ask Bubba for his opinion.

Me: "So whaddya think?"

Bubba: "Don't think! Pedal!"

He was right of course. I'm still laughing at myself over that one.