“YOU DID WHAT WITH OUR MONEY?”

Or, a Few Relevant Questions to Ask about Yet Another National Financial Fiasco

Shouldn't some portion of the massive bailout taxpayers are handing the incompetent company officials who recklessly got us in this mortgage mess be used instead to hire more regulators to insure we don't keeping throwing Treasury money away like this every few years? Shouldn't a few of those who cost us maybe trillions be fired or jailed or at least demoted for their incompetency and greed which has jeopardized our entire economy. At what point should greed start amounting to being a traitor or a threat to national security? Why have they allowed our future to be mortgaged to the hilt to foreign countries who don’t like us? Why are we blowing all our resources and capital today on short term gains without saving anything for the future?

Why is it that none of those in charge can seem to think beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election cycle? Shouldn't we finally stop listening to some of the mindless Pollyannas in the media who kept saying nothing was wrong, was wrong, was wrong? Why have we forgotten so soon the 1980s disaster these same nincompoops got us into with the now defunct savings and loan industry? Doesn't it strike anyone as interesting how often someone named Bush seems to be playing a prominent role in these debacles? Why did the Republicans when in control dismantle all the useful regulations and inspections of the industry? What made any sane person think controls weren't needed or that the ones profiting wouldn't help themselves given the chance? Were did such arrogance come from?

The Democratic Party has nothing to be proud of for their rolling over whenever Republicans sneer on the subject, but is there anyone left who still believes that the Republican party deserves a reputation for knowing anything about financial security or conservatism other than how to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else? Why doesn't this seem to make a difference to the voters? What is it about our education system that seems to prevent them from analyzing this for themselves?

It would be nice if we got a few trustworthy answers on these questions, although the corporate media we need to look into the questions seems as hell bent as lemmings to follow the corporate financial leaders right off the cliff.

"THE HOLLOW MEN AND WOMEN OF CONGRESS"

Or, Why can't Democrats in Office at least Pretend to be Democrats?

Almost every Democrat in Congress deserves a hard kick in the rear end for being lazy, cowardly, clueless, witless, naive, delusional and apparently keeping their fingers crossed when they took their oath of office to defend the Constitution.

How can they live with themselves? Stranger yet, how can they continue to call themselves leaders of the Democratic Movement which used to support the concept of the Golden Rule rather than the crass He Who Has the Most Gold Rules? They all deserve to be voted out of office and would be but for the fact that the Republicans are all those things at the moment plus rapaciously greedy and infinitely scary as well. Scary trumps stupidity when deciding who NOT to vote for.

Nevertheless, if the supposed "Democrats" who are doing nothing but take up space in the halls of Congress can’t put a halt to the depredations of the Republicans such as the further extension of the odious and overtly unConstitutional FISA law, then we will ultimately find some real Democrats to run who can.

If they want to keep their cushy, guaranteed paycheck, full health coverage jobs, as Democratic Party office holders, they'd better start acting like they belong to that party.

“WE NEED TO FLIP FLOP ON FLIP FLOPPING”

Or, Why Are We Such Doctrinaire Idiots About Changing Positions?

What is with the remarkable obsession everyone, particularly political junkies and punky pundits, seems to have regarding altering political positions or "flip flopping" as it is derogatorily known in the popular parlance? The question should not be whether a politician has changed position, but what exactly is his or her new position and why did he or she change.

It is not as if Moses brought down our political positions carved on stone tablets. We were not born with political positions. They evolve over time for almost everyone, normally slowly, albeit occasionally fast as when wars and personal frights warp judgments sometimes overnight. Normally, such evolution and change is a good thing (so long as it is not hormonal or adrenalin driven). Change usually demonstrates the person is a mentally healthy, intelligent adult, one showing the ability to adapt to new evidence and information as it is revealed.

In fact, never changing positions is the mark of either a liar or someone likely anal retentive, mentally deficient and unable to properly evaluate changing circumstances. By the same token, constantly changing positions from day to day suggests a frightened individual, incapable of making a decision even when needed, an equally scary person to put in office. Both are symptoms of mental illness of one degree or another, certainly not someone to elect.

But, considered change based upon carefully considered information to the extent then available is not automatically to be condemned. That is the essence of the Scientific Method that has served us so well most of the time.

Of course, if the person cravenly changed positions just to curry favor with a particular group of voters, that demonstrates someone not to be trusted. That is the moral equivalent of lying to everyone.

Consequently, suppose a candidate has proclaimed in the past that, say, the leader of a specific religious group is a biased lunatic who spouts hatred against others. Yet now, the same candidate embraces the same religious leader. Is there anything to support the theory that such hatred is no longer being broadcast by that religious leader? If so, good for everyone and the “flip flop” is a good thing. We should reward conversions when someone comes to their senses. Conversely however, if there is nothing to suggest the religious leader is doing anything different to merit the embrace, then the switch by the politician is suspicious and deserves condemnation. Not for the fact he flipped, but for his purpose in doing so.

We need the full facts, something the media steadfastly fails to deliver with the 30 second sound bites that pass for reporting “news” these days. We need more than just the fact that a supposed “flip flop” has occurred. What and why are more important.

For instance, I, for one, am willing to change my disgusted and low opinion about most so-called “journalists.” If only they would give me a reason. Please give me a reason. They can start with stop reporting so-called flip flops unless they give more information to go with it.

FISA WEATHER FRIENDS

Attention Democrat Party Congressional Leaders and other Fair Weather Friends of the Constitution:

Just what the %&*@#% do you think you are doing? FISA, a law only dictators could love, violates a whole bunch of unambiguous prohibitions in the Constitution designed for the express purpose of preventing dictatorships. Why then are you cowards giving Bush and his Neocon henchmen, dictator wannabes one and all, exactly what they want? The so-called “improvements” you are helping pass not only violate 200 year old liberties, they wipe out what was clear grounds for impeachment and will let some egregious criminals in the Administration go free to continue their harm without penalty.

You could have defeated the entire concept merely by doing nothing and letting the odious law expire. Doing nothing is something you have proven so good at over the last several years. Why didn’t you continue doing nothing for just once in your increasingly fruitless careers instead of becoming co-conspirators in the dismantlement of everything this country once stood for?

“THE LUNATIC ZONE”

Or, The Press Insistence That Only Black Preachers Are Nuts

Why does Rev. Wright automatically have to be labeled "left wing" by the press?

Can't we, as physicists do with "string theory," recognize that there might be other dimensions at "right angles," so to speak, to the normal left-right, up-down, forward-back plus time dimensions we normal folk perceive? In other words, dimensions outside reality?

Surely all the self styled holders of supposed religious "truths" like Wright, Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, ad infinitum, are so contrary to common sense that their minds must work, if "work" is an accurate term to use in connection with them, in totally different dimensions from the rest of us. Perhaps we should label them all as existing solely in the Lunatic Dimension.

They all have a Rod Sterling-isk quality to their rantings. It makes me feel like we are living in a bizarre episode of the “Twilight Zone.”

Click on cartoon to view the entire scene.

“OBAMA RAMA”

Or, Plebeian Pennsylvanians Proudly Pontificate

There’s one thing we Pennsylvania voters will never vote for – an uppity,...I mean, elitist nigger,... uh I mean, uh, person who’s colored. We certainly don’t like someone who’s smarter than we are, ...I mean, who seems smarter than we are.... I mean who ACTS smarter than we are.

Besides, his name sounds like he’s a raghead Muslim and we’d rather vote for someone with a purer, more wholesome sounding,‘Merican name like “John.” Now there’s a name that says class. Nothing smelly about it. Who wouldn’t be proud to be known as a John?

And, what’s with sticking with the same wife all those years? That not like the rest of us. It just proves Obama is really stupid. Doesn’t his family value the riches it can bring when you trade up for a perky cheerleader with hooters who happens to be wealthy. Wealth is what makes this country great. I might own a share of oil company stock some year or win the lottery and I bet he’d tax me on that.

There is one thing in his favor. We don’t really mind he can’t bowl. Naturally, we’ll make fun of how much he looks like a duffus, but we’re secretly relieved. After all, we got enough of his kind invading our sports, like golf. Course, I haven’t ever played golf myself. But, they already took away what used to be our sports like basketball and football. People with heavy tans look out of place in a windowless bowling alley. Let him stay with his own kind and leave us a few sports to play at besides just shootin deer mano a mano with high powered scopes and beer.

Speakin a shootin, he’s not a combat vet like John McCain or George W. Bush who braved bullets in war. Of course, if Osama O’Bama comes round here, we might give him that chance. To brave bullets that is. Heh, heh, heh. Target practice as our Southern cousins say.

Yeah, for sure he’s no patriot like our current Prez. Where’s Obama’a ‘Merican flag lapel pin made in China? Where’s his stars and stripes boxer underwear? He’s probably got the traitorous Dixie Chicks on his ipod and not a single Hank Williams. He doesn’t even want to torture insurgents to save America. Damn hippie commie.

And, look at all those people that gave him money and that crazy minister of his. They probably think that Obama will owe them something when he gets in the White House. You’d never catch “our” people sucking up to crazy religious leaders or lobbyists just to get votes. We don’t tolerate flip-floppers.

On top of that, can you imagine what it would be like to have a black in the Oval Office doing something besides cleaning it? All those black and brown countries around the world might think they don’t need to be afraid of us anymore. Where would we be then? We might have to say “please.” Washington and Jefferson would turn over in their graves. They gave us a Constitution that put people who are colored in their place and that place wasn’t with their finger on the red button at three a.m.

In any event, we need jobs. We can’t expect Obama to get us any. Who’s going to listen to a skinny black man who is not a multigazillionaire? No, we need instead experienced rich folks like the Clintons or McCain to get our lost jobs back. Now McCain and even the Clintons too, they got experience up the wazu. They got track records going back years and years and years in the White House and Congress already. Just because the same record says that the NAFTA and CRAPTA they gave us sent the jobs to Asia, doesn’t mean they’ll keep doing that. They musta learned how to do better by now. So, we need to give experience another chance to do it again. Let’s hear it for the Hillary or the John.

Bitter? Me bitter? Obama makes me bitter. He ain’t so smart though that we can’t teach him his high falutin dreams talkin bout working out our problems together is nothing but a bunch of crap.

So, ....God damn Obam.

"TORTURE 101 - A NEW CLASS AT BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL"

Or, Why Has a California Law School Decided a Torture Advocate Should Teach There?

Would someone please ask the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School why he woo'd John Yoo, the author of the memo to Bush on how to get away with torturing both suspects and the American Constitution, to be on the faculty? Does the Dean suffer from Alzheimer's? Is it because like Bush he never reads a newspaper? Is it because there is some sort of Affirmative Action program at UC Berkeley for torturers? Is the school going to open a branch at Gitmo or perhaps rename itself the Torquemada School of Depravity? Does the Law School no longer teach Constitutional Law? Has the Dean never read the Constitution? Did the Dean get his own law degree from a school that advertises on matchbooks? Does the Dean think that hiring Bush's henchmen likely to get the Dean awarded the inaptly named Presidential "Medal of Freedom"? Does the Dean hate America and all it once stood for? Doesn't the Dean think America has been embarrassed enough?

Come to think of it, why hasn't Consigliere Yoo's license to practice been revoked for unethical conduct? Lawyer are not supposed to assist clients in the commission of crimes. They are supposed to act at all times as Officers of the Court. And, if their clients insist on continuing to break the law, then the lawyer is supposed to report him to the police or courts. When Yoo gave Bush cover to conduct torture at whim, to search without warrants, to violate centuries old habeas corpus rules, to deprive defendants of counsel, to do much of the grievances that Thomas Jefferson decried in the Declaration of Independence and to lie about it, he became an unindicted co-conspirator and should never be allowed to be a model for students, unless Gestapo are the new models.

Yoo should be disbarred, not at the bar drinking with impressionable youngsters. Doesn’t anyone in California remember Yoo is teaching at a Law School, not a Liar School?

If the Dean at the UC Berkeley Law School refuses to answer any of the foregoing questions, does that mean we are free to waterboard him to get answers or at least lock him away without counsel until he talks?

"BACK IN THE SCHOOLYARD"

Or, Juvenile Local Politics

I used to think most of the community governments around here, particularly the city councils, acted like they were still in Junior High School complete with the usual little exclusionary cliques, petty personality cults, domination games and vengeance seeking for perceived insults. Observing the County Commissioners over the last few years however has convinced me the perceived age level of what passes for local “politicians” must be set even lower. Those currently in power seem to act like they are on a Grade School playground dominated by bullying, sulking and name calling taunts.

Replace them ALL, every last one, and do so at the earliest opportunity.

In fact, maybe there should be a Charter change to select Commissioners by lot, perhaps out of jury pools. It would be an interesting experiment. For the most part, the typical juror has proven to be much more thoughtful, attentive, and determined to do the right thing than the typical politician acting as if he or she had a “mandate” or entitlement to do whatever they wanted.

If we can’t seem to find genuine adults volunteering to run for office, then maybe we should “draft” some. Frankly, it is hard to imagine that even selecting officeholders at random, like some of the early Greek democracies once did by the way, could be much worse for our County than limiting the choices to just those who have been arrogantly self selecting themselves for the positions. Call me a cynic, but at least with a lottery system, we might finally have a statistical chance to occasionally find some who would act responsibly, selflessly, ethically, and concerned about the future beyond merely the next election cycle.

“WHY NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?”

Or, It’s Time to Stop Being Frightened by Mere Words

“Socialized Medicine.” Boo!

Like the Boogey Man, those two words are continually trotted out to scare one and all from even considering the concept. In case you have forgotten in all the frenetic hype and hyperbole over the past several decades on the subject, so-called socialized medicine - at its core - is much like insurance. It is essentially spreading the health costs over many people so that the unlucky few faced with a crippling illness do not have to cripple their family finances in the process. The primary difference is that if we had “socialized medicine,” we would not have to also fund the multimillion dollar salaries of insurance company CEOs, agent commissions, advertising expenses, and Wall Street level shareholder profits before the first dime is spent on actual health care of anyone.

Of course, those pocketing all that loot don’t want to lose it which is why they try to paralyze your thought processes to prevent you from enacting even the simplest safety net against catastrophic illness. They want to keep the burden shifted to those who were not born to rich parents and those who sadly lost the disease/accident lottery.

Their one argument of merit attacking the concept is the bugaboo that government is inefficient, as if the megalithic HMOs weren’t.

And, since they don’t have sufficient arguments on the actual respective merits, they attempt to divert attention by connotatively loading the term “socialized medicine”with associations to Sovietism and/or Communism, our once and possibly future enemy. Unfortunately, the smear tactics have worked making us forget the “Golden Rule” we learned in Sunday School about doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. Instead, they glorify that only Gold Rules when it comes to access to medical care.

What is fascinating about the opponents’ smoke and mirrors camouflaging their lack of substance is that this country is already heavily “socialized” in much of what it does and it has successfully been that way for many years. While the Socialist Party elected almost no one since its creation back in the early 1900s, most of their ideas were ultimately incorporated into law by Republican as well as Democratic administrations.

For instance, we have “socialized” schooling. It couldn’t be called anything else if you use the same voodoo linguistics favored by opponents of socialized medicine. Think about it. We have universal free education for everyone through high school regardless of ability or parentage. It is paid for by everyone out of tax dollars. That’s how you were educated. That is how everyone except the uber rich are still being educated. Is there anyone out there who thinks we should leave children behind merely because they can’t afford to go to private school?

We have had “socialized” fire and crime prevention since the 1800s. The fire department doesn’t go only to the biggest mansions anymore. It goes to what is on fire regardless of how wealthy the owner is. No one except maybe curmugeons think we should go back to the bad old days when private fire departments protected only the houses of those who paid for the privilege.

We have always had “socialized” military and national security. The Coast Guard does not check your Dun and Bradstreet rating before steaming out in the storm when the SOS is received. In fact, almost all rescue operations are socialized ones. If your child is lost, everyone shows up to search and it doesn’t have to be just someone like Paris Hilton missing.

“Socialized” highways and bridges? Absolutely. Whether a beat up pickup truck or a Rolls Royce, the drivers of those cars are charged exactly the same for building our highway infrastructure, even on toll bridges. There is “socialized” water delivery and sewage removal. There is “socialized” airport construction and air traffic control. There is “socialized” building and food inspection to keep us safe whether it is caviar or chitlins being scrutinized for samonella. Does anyone seriously suggest it should be otherwise in this day and age?

“Socialized” air waves for radio and tv? Of course. There are some channels that are only available by paying extra, but the core networks are still free to both Bill Gates and Joe Six Pack. The air waves are actually owned by the public despite some sell off going on by a Republican Administration wanting to reward its rich campaign contributors who want the airwaves and internet for themselves.

Wanna bet whether the President wants to give up his “socialized” Secret Service protection? He is rich enough to afford his own Pinkerton guards, but for all his rhetoric about pigs dining at the public trough, he certainly wants to keep dining at the “trough” himself at every opportunity.

And, have you forgotten Social Security, one of the most successful programs of all time in just about every criteria you can name, notwithstanding the hysteria the Republicans try to create? But, that is a much longer topic that needs to be addressed at a different time. Suffice to say Franklin Roosevelt’s experiment is still useful and better than any of the other alternatives.

We even have a certain amount of “socialized” medicine already. Emergency rooms don’t discriminate depending on whether the victim is wearing a cummerbund or not. Similarly, the universal access of the ADA looks to whether there is a disability rather than the social status of the beneficiaries when enforcing such laws. All they need to be is disabled.

It is legitimate to want to insure that incompetencies, inefficiencies and potential corruption be rooted out whenever genuine instances of such abuses of any system are discovered. But, if that were the sole test for whether “socialized medicine;” i.e., health care for all, should be in a government agency rather than the mishmash of profiteering private companies, then President Bush should have been fired long ago and the Homeland Security Department would not exist. Does the acronym FEMA and the city of New Orleans come to mind?

Come to think of it, do the private companies of Wall Street, which were supposed to be so brilliant and efficient that they didn’t even need regulation, really strike you as all that incompetent-free now that the whole housing and lending fiascos have been revealed? It looks like the conservatives are screaming at the top of their lungs that we must instantly institute “socialized banking.” The current attempts to reward the incompetents responsible for our snowballing banking crisis seems to be little other than a socialized bailout using taxpayer funds and guarantees which means more taxpayer funds if something goes wrong.

Sure we need to put in place safeguards against waste and losses. But, basically, you put socialized medicine in place, perhaps as part of the Social Security Administration, and just make sure it is under close oversight unlike the secrecy allowed in HMOs and health insurance corporations.

Remember too, cutting out multimillion dollar insurance company CEO salaries, cutting out the massive profit they suck out of revenue, cutting out the massive commissions only applicable when it is a private program, cutting out the expensive office space demanded by private company egos, etc. pays for a mighty big amount of bureaucratic inefficiency, even assuming it exists and that the huge monolithic insurance companies never ever suffer from the same human weaknesses. The cost/benefit analysis seems to be clearly in favor of going the “socialized medicine” route.

At the very least, we ought to stop giving automatic credence to everything touted by those currently profiting, and massively so, from health care. We ought to suspect their words might be tainted by a basic conflict of interest. In fact, if you stop to think about it, in one sense most of those execs and other non-doctors profiting from health care might arguably be described as the societal equivalent of vultures. They do make their living off the pain, suffering and death of others after all. Of course, that analogy can’t be pushed too far since it also applies to lawyers, dentists, accountants and other licensed professionals. Nevertheless, due to that strong self interest inherent in their positions, their prescription calling for leaving our health care “system” as is ought to be consumed with the proverbial grain of salt. And, whatever “facts” opponents of change supply should be closely scrutinized, especially those about how socialized medicine in foreign countries allegedly never works. At the moment, it is hard to believe anything could be more broken than what we have. In any event, we certainly should stop making assumptions and stop listening to knee jerk type responses anytime the subject is broached. Let’s get the real facts, ones not connotatively loaded or biased.

Besides, there are also two new reasons to finally reconsider imposing “socialized medicine.” There might be new allies now. Doctors originally bought into the theories promoted by opponents of the concept that we can’t allow “socialized medicine” because they thought it would restrict their incomes. Over time though, a substantial percentage of young doctors have been relegated to being just slaves to the HMOs, stripped of their independence on just about everything including what is best for their patients. Ironic. As a result, they might reconsider and join the growing bandwagon to insure money is finally available to provide health care. If nothing else, it is a way to insure they themselves will have jobs.

Perhaps even more important, even if you want to ignore the critical moral and ethical justifications for “socialized medicine,” is that it might very well make solid economic and competitive sense above and beyond the savings possible once it is implemented. For instance, foreign manufacturers are kicking our rears because their countries have socialized medicine and we don’t. Our companies, at least the ones interested in keeping workers, pay for the health insurance costs of employees. That is a cost which must be added to the goods being sold. Foreign companies therefore automatically get a competitive price advantage because they don’t have to fund the health insurance. Their governments do. Let’s put our nation’s companies, all of them, on a level playing field, not only with each other, but the entire world. It might help reverse our horrendous trade deficit and the new revenue flowing this way help pay for the health care we need.

On top of that, data suggests it would be less expensive in the long run because right now, Americans who cannot afford health insurance tend to wait until a disease has gone so far that only the dramatically more expensive emergency room care is left rather than preventive medicine. It is usually cheaper and usually more effective to try and prevent disease than cure them. It also means that when the inevitable calamity finally does come, the individual who delayed treatment is out of work longer, thereby earning less wages, paying fewer taxes, probably contributing to the mortgage and housing industry crisis, and subjecting his or her family to danger as well.

So, for every reason (except the fictitious ones still being made up by opponents), let’s remember both our Sunday School and economics lessons. Let’s have a reasoned debate on the real facts and the merits, a debate lead by adults, not demagogues. Whatever we do, let’s not be scared stupid the next time someone uses the words “socialized medicine.”

“THE WAR AGAINST CIVILIZATION”

Or, How Bush Is Making America as Uncivilized as Its Enemies

Bush should be congratulated on winning the War Against Civilization.

Let’s see. So far, he’s canceled the civilizing effects of the “quaint” old Geneva Conventions. Check. He’s authorized torture of human beings which used to be anathema to all civilized human beings. Check. And, he’s pretty much eliminated the “checks and balances” in the Constitution designed to prevent tyranny. Check and Check.

Negated the Bill of Rights? Right. Search without warrants? Sealed it. Jail forever without trial or counsel? Nailed it. Presume guilt of everyone? Got it.

What about his oath of office, which expressly called for defending the Constitution? Well, he swore his oath back in January 2000. But, as VP Dick so aptly said though, “So?” Besides, crossing your fingers behind your back while taking an oath of office is a time honored way to undermine Civilization. Law are only for petty people who still foolishly believe in Civilization.

No doubt, the Constitution was far too civilized for our own good. As Bush constantly reminds us, we are now living in perilous times unlike any of our prior wars where we only fought against puny enemies such as Hitler, Tojo and Jefferson Davis. Fighting a tall bearded guy operating out of a cave and dragging around a dialysis machine? Now, that’s a real dangerous enemy, one who obviously can conquer and occupy us any time he wants to. Bush said Osama envied our “democracy.” Fortunately for us, Bush solved that problem by disposed of it along with all those hanging chads in Florida.

What else can Bush offer as proof of his success in his Crusade? Lying, cheating, attacking peremptorily and theft? Some would say even civilized countries do that. Okay then. What about invading other countries based upon whim supported by lies and cheating? Oh, that’s more like it. Civilized countries try to avoid that. How about doing it for reasons of coveting and lusting after oil, lucre and power games? Better yet. Referring to it as a Crusade, especially in reference to a Muslim country? Perfect. Bombs away, Bush! That’s the way to win your War to eliminate the temptations of Civilization.

Speaking of bombs, knowingly killing women and infants who happened to be innocently within the blast radius of dumb or even smart bombs? Heh, heh, heh. Aw, that’s just “collateral damage,” isn’t it? Yessiree. What a civilized word for an uncivilized act. Bush could have sent in trained troops to isolate only the insurgents and thereby minimize the deaths of the innocents, but that would not “support the troops,” who of course, were there in deadly danger where they should never have been in the first place if we hadn’t blundered into that particular cesspool. That creates sort of a double dip into the antithesis of Civilization.

Bush has fomented or encouraged multifront war between religions, war between ethnic groups and war between races. He even allowed ethic cleansing. Iraq is a nice example. In fact, much of the alleged success for the so-called “Surge” was due to the emptying of mixed religion neighborhoods in the previous rounds of violence. Harder to kill someone who left the country. Hell, Bush has even resurrected class warfare; i.e. the uber rich, like him, against everyone else. Yep, he is a real Warrior thanks to his multitudinous conflicts, fully entitled to wear fancy Warlord costumes on aircraft carriers. Our Fearless Leader (so long as bullet are not flying in his direction) is almost a one man conflagration, a bushfire so to speak.

He doesn’t even need fire. He has shown he can win the War against Civilization just using water. Anyone remember New Orleans? There is nothing so uncivilized as doing nothing while others drown. That’s a wonderful demonstration showing just how uncivilized he can be. Blaming the victims? Better yet. Golden Rule? Gold Rules!

Impoverishing and sickening millions and damaging or destroying both their environment, their health, their savings, their credit and means of making a living? Well, although not technically a necessity of Civilization, such amenities certainly made everyone feel more civilized. So, I suppose we should grant our Crippler-in-Chief those tools too as part of his battles almost won in his practically single handed war against anything that used to represent Civilization such as caring, compromise, cooperation, conciliation, consensus, courtesy, and a conventional Constitution.

Time Magazine ought to do a new cover feature and retire the trophy with an award to George Armstrong Custer, I mean George Bush, not just as “Man of the Year,” but “Man of the 21st Century” because it is going to take the rest of the Century to dig us out of the cemetery hole his War on Civilization has dug for us.

“THERE WE GO AGAIN”

Or, Challenging the Assumption We Cannot Get Out of Iraq

Even many Bush supporters now admit the war was fought on false premises and hugely damaged us. Their sole remaining argument in favor of staying seems to be essentially an assertion that "We broke it. So, we bought it." They repeat over and over, almost as a mantra, that while it is unquestionably, horrifyingly expensive to stay there, we must do so for probably decades because somehow it would be more expensive to get out.

What is missing entirely from the discussion is how they come to such an assumption. We desperately need to have some genuine research and intelligent debate regarding that conclusion. Let’s do what educated, thoughtful adults are supposed to do - a methodical cost/benefit analysis, one based on the best attainable figures and data.

In other words, let's finally stop relying on ASSUMPTIONS because assumptions are precisely what got us into this ego driven misadventure in the first place.