Saturday Night Live ran a skit that showed Gore in his trophy room, bragging about his awards which ranged from the Nobel Peace Prize to a framed immunization certificate. The joke fell flat, with hardly any laughter, and applause when the Nobel Peace Prize was mentioned.

Thank goodness some people have a little sense.

The problem with the argument that all this attention on global warming is really attention on Gore is this: Al Gore is not the first person to win a Nobel Peace prize based on his environmental progress. He’s actually the second one in just a few years.

In 2004, the prize went to Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan politician who planted millions of trees to help stop soil erosion. She felt very strongly that helping the environment does promote peace.

“What the Nobel committee is doing is going beyond war and looking at what humanity can do to prevent war,” said Maathai. “Sustainable management of our natural recourses will promote peace.” (Slate)

Whether you love Gore or you hate him, you can’t deny that he has done a lot to spread awareness about global warming. It has certainly become a topic for debate worldwide.

There is a lot of proof suggesting that the recent change in the earth’s temperature is a normal fluctuation. Maybe it is. But is it that hard to believe that the cloud of black smoke coming from an 18-wheeler could be affecting the atmosphere? Or, is it that hard to believe that the giant landfill overflowing with plastic bottles could be hurting the earth?

I’m not asking anyone to sell their house and live off of their own organic farms and solar-powered water heaters. I’m just saying it can’t be that hard to throw your paper into a recycling bin. If you leave a room, turn off the light. Take a slightly shorter shower. Small things.

And please — PLEASE — stop turning the environment into a political issue. Caring for the earth shouldn’t be considered left-wing. We are all living on the earth. Why not take care of it?

In case anyone isn’t familiar, the fourth amendment is the one about search and seizure. In order for a search to be conducted, the authorities have to have a warrant obtained because they could prove probable cause for you to have a specific thing that they are looking for in a specific place. If evidence against someone is found without a warrant, even if it unquestionably incriminates the person, it cannot be used to convict that person in court.

Apparently, this doesn’t work for W. Rather than obtaining a warrant to listen in on a phone conversation or read an e-mail, he has given himself permission to read/listen to whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Probable cause? That can always be found later, if they’re guilty. Warrants? Who needs ‘em?

Yes, we are in a war. But even with my adoration of cliches, I just don’t buy that all’s fair in war. This is the Bill of Rights we’re talking about. You can’t just throw that out. Maybe it can’t always happen, but I want a transparent government. If there is someone who is plotting to kill a lot of people, then by all means listen to his phone calls and catch him. But get a warrant first! It’s the President for goodness sakes, surely he won’t have too much trouble finding a judge to sign off on one. Respect the Bill of Rights! Respect the Constitution! They’ve both been around longer than anyone here, and they’ve worked pretty well so far.