Editor's Note: Go, Elko! Go, Elko!

An open letter to Rep. Jim Gibbons:

Congressman, I trust that you have heard about what happened last week in the heart of your district. The Elko County Commission voted unanimously to oppose your beloved PATRIOT Act.

The commissioners are disturbed that the act violates our liberties. Their resolution states that the county "is opposed to actions which violate due process and right to privacy without probable cause." They add that the county "is opposed to the collection or maintenance of information about the political, religious or social views, associations, or activities of any individual unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities based on probable cause, not mere suspicion of criminal conduct." The commissioners urge Congress "to repeal any provision of the USA PATRIOT Act or other measures that infringe on civil liberties."

This is very interesting. Elko County is not exactly a hotbed of ACLU membership. It doesn't have many of those raving liberals you sometimes encounter in Las Vegas and Reno. Elko is old-school, God-fearing conservative country, yet those folks in the heart of your district have a problem with Attorney General John Ashcroft's fascistic crusade.

Elko County is the first government entity in Nevada to pass a resolution opposing the PATRIOT Act. But it is far from alone. Three states and more than 250 cities and counties across the nation have passed similar resolutions.

Now, to be fair, I know you have told reporters that a few sections of the PATRIOT Act ought to be looked at. But the general impression I have is that you support President Bush on most things, and especially the war on terror.

Yet the people in the heart of your district--your philosophical brethren--have gone on record that they believe the PATRIOT Act violates the Constitution. Makes you think, right?

A bipartisan bill aimed at curbing some of the most blatant violations of the PATRIOT Act is gaining some momentum in Congress. It is supported by Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican who is probably more conservative than you. The Security and Freedom Ensured Act, or SAFE, would amend portions of the PATRIOT Act that deal with search warrants, wiretaps and access to library records. Another bill, called the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, is being spearheaded by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Congressman, supporting one of these bills could go a long way toward improving your credibility as an independent-minded politician, not to mention giving you a way to distance yourself from the increasingly unpopular Bush administration. What do you say?

It's a gas, gas, gas

There's been a lot of complaining this week about gasoline hitting $2 per gallon. I, for one, am happy as hell about it.

Confused? It's simple. Rising prices hit gas hogs the hardest. That means the people who drive those lumbering Hummers, Suburbans and large pickups and SUVs that get 6 or 8 miles per gallon are paying through the nose. My hope is the rising prices will spur some of these folks to trade in their gas-guzzling vehicles in favor of something that gets better mileage.

My wife doesn't think it will matter. She thinks the owners of gas-guzzlers will just pay the extra money and roar on down the road. Sadly, she may be right. The Las Vegas Sun printed a long story Monday in which the reporters talked to several local drivers and none of them expressed a desire to give up their vehicles.

Of course, some analysts think gasoline prices eventually could reach $3 per gallon. Maybe then we'll get the gas hogs' attention.

In any case, we're going in the wrong direction on fuel consumption in this country. Congress, succumbing to the auto manufacturing lobby, has declined to increase fuel economy standards for new vehicles. The auto makers, eager to please their gluttonous customers, are building larger and heavier vehicles, fuel economy be damned.

And in the process, the United States--the world's only superpower--continues to live at the mercy of oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.

It's just not smart.

I'm gonna Ralph

So Ralph Nader says he's running for president again. Fine. I gotta believe Democrats won't be so stupid this time as to let Nader hand President Bush a second term.

But it's too bad about Nader. He used to be America's progressive political leader. And despite its ultimate impact, Nader's 2000 candidacy carried some weight. The vapid rhetoric coming from the Republican and Democratic nominees cried out for a third voice to pose serious questions about where the country was going and to offer some legitimate answers.

But in 2004, Nader is just being an idiot. He has seen as well as anyone what Bush is doing to the country--and to its reputation across the globe. He has to know that presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry is capable of repairing at least some of Bush's damage. Yet Nader, his bloated self-image overwhelming his common sense, presses forward with his doomed candidacy.

The good news is most Democrats who voted for Nader in 2000 won't vote for him this year. Beating Bush is too important to waste your vote. The bad news is this ill-fated candidacy will ruin Nader's reputation in the eyes of many who have long admired his tenacious advocacy for progressive causes.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER