Agreed there. However, I wish politicians would see (and they most likely do, but they fail to address it) the immense risk to national security by importing so much of our energy (which is oil at this point). What happens if Iran decides to detonate a nuke in the Persian Gulf? Or Chevez of Venezuela pulls out of OPEC and decides to only sell oil to China?

The safest thing is to increase what we can produce domestically of the current market choice of fuel, which is oil. Barring off shore drilling, ANWR (and the estimates vary immensely on how much is there), and other such projects is just remarkably short sighted and risky.

The goverment should not, will not and most of all cannot effect this type of change. At least not in this country. Just look at what the Bush administration is doing with their "Freedom Car" initiative announced in the state of the union speech. All of the research dollars are going to major oil companies to research ways to create hydrogen using fossil fuels. Doh! Zippy is being spent to further development of clean alternatives such as solar and wind.

A congressman is under investigation by the FBI. He was on tape accepting 100K in bribes. He had 90K in his office in the fridge. There was a search warrant for the office signed by the judge.

The house leadership is upset about separation of powers.

What????????

Yeah, good one eh? Here's the Republicans' chance to get out from under the corruption label. A Dem pulling shady parkinglot briefcase handoffs. But all they're worried about is, "Oh sh*t, the Feds can search my office?!" (not saying the 'pubs are worse than the 'crats, just finding it ammusing to see where all congress's priorities lie)

That discussion needs to be had.

I am gratified to see Democratic leadership calling for his resignation.

I think the republicans don't want him to be punished at all so he can be the poster boy for them when hammered on corruption, and the dems do so that they can continue on their "culture of corruption", regardless of the fact that both parties have members that are corrupt.

It's a valid complaint, I think, even if the congressman is dirty as all hell. With a president using, in my opinion, too strong a definition of executive power the penetration of the executive into the legislative area should be strongly scrutinized.

I'm not saying that a Congressman should be able to avoid discovery by simply keeping all of the evidence in his office. But there should be a process by which the Department of Justice works with the Congressional leadership (with appropriate exceptions and ways allowing investigation of corrupt leadership) to ensure that such investigations are appropriately targetted and giving Congress the chance to seek judicial remedy if they feel there is a valid separation of powers issue (much like the White House first goes to court when arguing a documents subpoena from Congress.

I disagree. Having such a process would violate equal protection laws. Just because someone is a congressman does not mean that special consideration should be made in terms of consulting with the leadership. A judicial warrant is good enough to search my office. Should be good enough to search the office of a congressman. I see no separation of powers issue. I see bruised egos of the house leadership as the issue.

Then in that case Congress already violates equal protection laws. They are granted official immunity from legal responsibility for the results of their official actions. Similarly, as was highlighted recently, they can break many laws in the persuit of performing their official duties (they can speed -- or drive drunk -- so long as they are on their way to cast an official vote, for example).

It is not the person who is being treated differently, it is the institution. Similarly, a subpoena from Congress is sufficient to compel quite a lot of behaviors from you and yet the president would be immune from most of them.

I don't have time to look, but isn't that immunity from prosecution or civil action in the Constitution? I seem to recall that it is for the express purpose of not allowing endless lawsuits or criminal prosecution to paralyze that branch of office.