As we creep towards the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, the question of why we are still there has yet to be answered. Most likely it never will, unless you follow the no-bid contracts and oil company profits being reaped there. These were the only true winners in the war, at least on the American side. The losers undoubtedly were the American people, specifically tax-paying citizens and the troops.

We all know our national debt has steadily grown over recent years, and now we face the prospects of higher taxes and reduced social services. The hidden cause of this is the American war machine, which receives more national government spending every year than China and Europe combined. Some of the more "enlightened" readers may be thinking "but military spending only takes up 20% of the national budget, about as much as Social Security or Medicaid and Medicare." At best this is misleading, and at worst it is a lie.

One week ago, television pundits and journalists from both sides of the aisle actually came together in agreement about the futility of the health summit. While some conservatives declared the meeting a trap meant to ensnare negotiation and an equal number of liberals ballyhooed the President’s attempt at open dialogue, most Americans agree the summit was just another reiteration of the consensus from both sides. Open dialogue and expression of opinion is enlightening and necessary, but many Americans feel the time has come for action, if only for its own sake. The public has endured hours of congressional debate, town hall meetings, and media discussion on this issue with no new agreement. Last Thursday’s summit was no exception.

The nationally televised event lasted over seven hours and achieved an atmosphere of cooperation, but no actual legislation. President Obama opened the event by expressing his desire to find a middle ground, but also showed how his year in office has made him aware of the limits of hope. “We might surprise ourselves and find out that we agree more than we disagree," Mr. Obama said. The President then qualified this hope adding, "It may turn out, on the other hand, there's just too big of a gulf."

Republicans refused to budge on their stance and expressed the need to erase the past 13 months of reconciliation and begin again. Senator McCain took the floor at one point and read off a list of “unsavory deals” in the Democratic bills that his party could not stand for. In the end, Mr. Obama concluded that if the two parties cannot reach a deal, Democrats would push legislation anyway and let voters judge in the next election.

Even though the President implied that the healthcare stalemate might soon be over, recent Democratic losses in both houses of Congresses suggest that any decisions made now may be rescinded in the near future. President Obama’s clamor for action after months of listening and debate is admirable and needed, but may be in vain without bipartisan support.

President Obama's bipartisan healthcare summit was an opportunity for the Democrats and Republicans to come together in front of the American people and show us that they can put politics aside in favor of practical compromise. After spending over six months in the Senate negotiating with Republicans like Chuck Grassley, you would think that the Democrats would be in a good position to peel off some Republican support. The current Senate healthcare bill has been so diluted by compromise that very little actually separates Democrats and Republicans when it comes to reform. The Democrats worked to bridge the negligible gap by offering moderate (read: lackluster) ideas based on Republican ideas and complaints.

On the other hand, all we got from Republicans was political posturing and flat-out lying. Many members of the Republican delegation came with a prop - the entire healthcare reform bill. They forgot to bring their dignity, though. The summit has taught us three things about the Republican approach to the reform fight, and Republican politics in general.

Every year, thousands of young conservative activists gather to mingle, network, and see their idols up close and live while seeing who can come up with the best zinger against the Democrats. This year, there were the expected attacks against and jokes about the much-reviled trio of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but they also turned their guns towards a surprise target – the Republican Party.

Despite the fact that almost all the speakers are currently Republicans or have lost an election as a Republican (that would be you Rick Santorum in case you forgot in your diversity hating delirium), someone with limited political knowledge could have easily mistaken conservatives as a third political party in the United States. In fact, some speakers did call for a third political party while giving the middle finger to the GOP. Glenn Beck, in his keynote address, absolutely slammed the Republicans and compared them to the Democrats, which would be like comparing someone to George Bush at Columbia.

Does a definitive American style still exist in the 21st century? New York Fashion Week took place last week in an America that was still recovering from the economy, still trying to assert its authority amid foreign competitors while appeasing the increasingly divided public. In response to such an identity crisis, many American designers attempted to adapt quintessential American fashion to the modern age, from Derek Lam’s cowboy inspired fall collection to Tommy Hilfiger’s classically preppy designs. Most notably, perhaps, was the reemergence of voluminous, extravagant fur on the runways. One year ago, at the peak of the economic crisis, no sane fashion designer would dare include fur in their collections, for fear of being accused of disregarding consumer demand and violating animal rights. But this year, to the dismay of animal rights supporters, lavish fur coats, fur dresses, fur tops, and even fur purses were proudly and freely presented down the runways. Does this surprising trend represent a disjunction between the fashion-forward artistic crowd and Middle America, or are designers signaling towards an optimistic future, one where the United States is able to revert to its prominent, relatively luxurious past?

The 2008 Presidential election was supposed to be a highlight of my political life. I had just turned 18 and couldn't wait to see George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney out of the White House. But it soon became obvious that I didn't have a dog in this fight. You see, I didn't like Barack Obama, from the time he was only known as the Senate's lone Black Ranger, even until much of the world thought that he was the Messiah reincarnate. I wasn't voting for Hilary or Joe or John Edwards. My friends and family didn't understand: surely I could have found someone to vote for amongst this diverse group of candidates? But I couldn't. You see, my problem with all of these politicians was that they were all federal Legislators (Senators to be precise); and they had all let me down. (Now many people pointed out to me that Rudy Giulani could possibly be a good President, after all, he did manage to clean up New York after the grimy '70's, '80's, and '90's. I, however, found his "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" campaign strategy less than convincing).

Edwards, Obama, Clinton; these were legislators that failed America. As legislators, what had either of them done for me, or any citizen, lately? I wasn't impressed with their cowardly and calculating habit of refusing to speak out against Bush Administration policies until it became politically convenient to do so. Even if these policies directly contradicted their party's ideology or their campaign promises. Even when the masses displayed their collective frustration with Republicans and the Bush Administration in the 2006 midterm elections by giving Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Bush did whatever the hell he wanted.

Though the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and 202 seats in the House, the Republicans were still able to hold the entire Congress hostage. The Bush Administration was still able to torture terrorists, gain additional funding for shady contractors in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and mushroom the powers of the executive branch. Its almost as if Democrats confused their position with a fly on the wall. But now that Democrats have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, why are they still so afraid of the Republican party? And don't mention the upcoming midterm elections to any Democrat, or else they might just start to cry.

The details of yesterday's tragedy in Austin, Texas were nerve rattling, if for no other reason than that it resembled the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Joseph Stack, a disgruntled computer software engineer, flew a small plane into the IRS office building in Austin, killing at least one person and setting the building aflame. The attack bore all the marks of a terrorist attack: Stack left behind a note detailing a cogent political philosophy and justifying the use of violence to uphold that philosophy. He excoriated the government for serving the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class, and expressed political views in line with those of the populist tea-party movement and certain elements of the left. If we're comparing this to al-Quaeda, Stack's attack definitely qualifies as terrorism.

However, yesterday found the media reluctant to label this incident an act of terrorism. What's the difference between this attack and the radical Islamic ones that inundate the news everyday?

Well, for one, the guy wasn't a Muslim. The media's delicate handling of this story demonstrates that "terrorism" has become disentangled from its true definition, and has come to characterize only Islamic related violence. It says a lot about how America views the legitimacy of Muslim resistance to Western geopolitical hegemony, and Islam in general.

"Private: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class."

President Obama's Race to the Top education plan has not been in the headlines very much because most of it has yet to be implemented, but from recent trends in education reform one can see where it is heading. At the heart of this movement is the effort to privatize the nation's public schools in the form of charter schools.

Two days ago, Andrew Young, a former aide to John Edwards, turned over the now notorious sex tape featuring Edwards and his mistress to a North Caroline judge. Young, who recently released a tell all account of the Edwards presidential campaign and the scandal that destroyed it, is one of the many supporters whose careers, political loyalties, and deepest affections Edwards has squandered with his lies and infidelities. Edwards' career now lies in ruins as his reputation is further demolished by everything from the heartbreaking, his repeated denials of his daughter's paternity, to the absurd, Young's claim that the former North Carolina senator asked him to steal the baby's diaper to conduct a secret paternity test.

Perhaps the biggest news coming out of the Tea Party Convention held last week in Nashville, TN was the fact that Sarah Palin wrote notes on her hand during her keynote speech. While criticizing President Obama for using a teleprompter. While being paid $100,000 to speak at the convention.

But Palin jokes aside, the conference marks a huge turning point for American politics and especially, the Republican Party. A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government in D.C. With the spendthrift Democrats attempting to plow ahead with their agenda against the wishes of the American population and the Republicans doing little to stop them, many Republicans and right-leaning Independents have turned to the Tea Party movement to express their anger.