While England Slept...
And the same can be said for Spain, France, Germany and Italy. It can be applied to the entire EU-rinal from Ireland to Ukraine, from Oslo to Malta. The countries of Europe have been asleep.

While Europe has slept under the shield of American protection, it has invited a virus into it's host body which will surely kill it. That virus is radical Islamic fundamentalism.

It came with the Algerians who clean the French sewers and ensure that Jean Q. le Publique gets to vacation for four weeks a year, and pay the taxes that enable him to retire and retire at 55. It arrived with the Turks who came to Germany to sweep the streets and which allows Herr Shicklegruber to enjoy his local hospital. The pernicious germ came attached to the Albanians arriving in Italy in record numbers so that Italians can watch their annual Milan-Juventus match without having to worry about their trash being picked up.

The infection exists in the millions of unassimilated Arabs and Muslims living on the crumbs of the societies that they perpetuate with the sweat of their brow and back-breaking labor. The English, French, Germans and Italians are more than willing to let these people live amongst them, provided they do what's required of them (pay taxes, vote for this or that political party), but otherwise wants nothing to do with them.

Well, apparently, that's not going to be the way of things anymore.

There are millions of disaffected, detatched fromt heir homes and their culture, looking for something to cling onto, something to identify with. They're not allowed to be French, they're merely cogs in the machine of the French welfare state, so naturally, they cling to the only unifying and fufilling force they have: their religion.

But that religion has also been infected: by political theories, by moral relativism, by pap psychology. It's no longer a religion in the purest sense --- a moral compass by which the faitful will live their lives. It has instead become the driving force in destroying that to which they cannot belong --- Western Culture.

This is something Europeans seem to be missing. Perhaps because it's Europeans who invented the process of pap psychology, moral relativism, ridiculous political theories and deconstruction that allows evil to fester in their midst without anyone identifying it as such.

Europe has now had two serious wake up calls: one in Madrid and the other in London. You start to wonder when the political leaders will stop hitting the snooze button and do what needs to be done: either assimilate these folks or fight to the death with them. The first option will never happen because to do so would seriously undermine European society. The second will happen because it's the only option the Muslims are laying on the table.

Of Blind Hogs and Acorns...
There's an old expression that states that "even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while". Never was that more evident to me than yesterday when a friend of mine in England sent me the text of a speech by London Mayor Ken "Red Ken" Livingstone.

Now Mr. Livingstone is an avowed Communist, which makes him incredibly suspect in my mind. But when faced with the tragedy of the London Tube Bombings, Mr. Livingstone pulled out an utter gem of elequence that neatly sums up British resolve to stay the course in the face of Islamonazis.

For your reading pleasure, via an e-mail from Gene Reynolds (a Yank over the pond), I give you Mr. Ken Livingstone:

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith - it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I’m proud to be the mayor of that city.

Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life.

I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don’t want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

"They'll Always be An England...."
I'm going to assume that no one who reads this will have ever heard of Vera Lynn (unless you're either a WWII buff or a Pink Floyd fan). Ms. Lynn was an English chantruese who helped solidify British resolve to beat the Nazis in the 1940's by singing little ditties that reminded people of just what they were fighting for.

It wasn't just for King and Country. There was a culture of Englishness, that was both unique and natural, that needed to be maintained (and not just for sentimental reasons) because it was inherently good, while the Axis was inherently evil.

In today's morally-relative world, the concepts of "good" and "evil" are sometimes likened to the use of a racial epithet and it is believed that by doing away with such "conventional" distinctions we'll somehow create a better world. This kind of thinking never really computes, however. There is a grave difference between calling someone a "nigger", for example, and entering a crowded subway station and igniting an explosive that kills someone. One is merely a calculated act of ignorance whilst the other is a calculated act of murder. Ignoring both the intent of either act or the ramiofications it unleashes, does nothing to better mankind or to alleviate the motivating factors behind them. In order to fight evil, one must be first prepared to define just what evil is, and further be prepared to identify it when one sees it.

A racial epithet is nasty, but it's necessarily evil. Blowing up businessmen, tourists, laborers and policemen to forward a twisted ideological mindset which masquerades as religion, is.

Good and evil do exist, and not as mere adjectives that one can apply to one and not another depending upon your political whims. The "good" England of Vera Lynn's day was a beacon of civilization and civility, the rule of law, and the ability of a people, across a broad spectrum of wealth and class, heritage and language, to band together to fight a common enemy for a common purpose. It was the England of comunity. The "evil" it was fighting against was one of the rule of the dictator, the marching of populations into servitude and death, and the ideology of hate as a national virtue.The very core of Nazi ideology was barbaric inhumanity.

The England of that day fought to remain not only English, but to remain HUMAN. The spearpoint of Nazi barbarism was countered by the shield of English community and humanity. The concepts of politics, freedoms, economics and social forces are merely secondary to the main thrust of English resistance in 1939-45: we have seen evil and hate it, in fact, we'll destroy it.

And so the same holds today.

The same London that burned under the bombers of the Luftwaffe, the doodlebugs and the V-2, and emerged victorious, will again stand up to the Nazis of the 21st century and similarly emerge victorious. Times and attitudes may have changed in post-War Britain, but it takes more than that to emeliorate the inbred virtues of a people. The Churchillian race of the Bulldog British will once again emerge, counter the threat at it's doorstep and triumph.

History, after all, does repeat itself.

Apologia...
I've been busier than a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest recently, so I have not been able to spew on here as much as I would have liked. I apologize to three or four fellow misfits that might actually hit this page.

In the meantime, there's been a ton of stuff happening elsewhere. London has been bombed by depraved Islamonazis. New York City has lost it's bid to host the Olympic Games. Cats and Dogs have signed as peace treaty at an historic summit in Helsinki (not really).

But fear not, gentle reader, I will take a crack at all of these subjects, and more.

Excommunication By Any other Name...
A virulent brouhaha has erupted here in the idyllic burgh of Staten Island, NY over the pronouncement of a local priest concerning church attendance and religious instruction.

Father Richard Chicon of St. Thomas-St. Joseph's RC Church has decided to toss 250 children out of his catechism program since they do not attend church on a regular basis. Father Chicon knows the children are not attending mass because each child was provided with a series of bar-coded envelopes to be used for the donation plate when they did show up. Having identified a whole battalion of non-churchgoers via electronic means, Father Chicon decided to make a point; you cannot come to my school for religious instruction and then not follow up by attending mass.

The Father is correct, of course, on many a level. He's also wrong on a variety of others.

I'm a product of the Catholic schools here in New York. As such, I was practically in church every day. Many of the kids who attend the catechism are not members of the church school next door. They attend public or other non-religious private schools. They attend religious training for the purposes of receiving the sacraments, for the most part. By denying these children the opportuniy to be taught church doctrine and theology, Father Chicon is simultaneously denying them the right to receive the sacraments.

Policies like this helped kick off the Protestant Reformation, you know. If the Church is supposed to be saving souls, why is it trying like the Devil to keep the souls from the instruction they require? The issue, of course, is money. Hence the bar coded envelopes.

It takes money to run the church, it's school and it's catechism program. Parents, of course, pay a fee for their children's instruction, but it's not enough. The Catholic church never has enough money, it seems. So, while the Reverand might be perfectly right in his assertion that receiving instruction and not attending mass afterwards is hypocritical, he's also wrong in selling indulgences. Which is what this amounts to.

But then again, this is also the same church which invented the concept of purgatory in order to suck money from guilty noblemen. The concept of purgatory, basically stated, was that a soul did not immediately proceed to heaven or hell upon death, but lingered in a waiting room of sorts before judgement. During that time, a borderline sould might be saved if he had enough people pray for him. So, many a rich aristocrat ponied up vast sums to have masses said for them, or candles lit in their honor, have churhces and monastaries built, or simply left everything to the chantry (litterally a fund to pray for the souls trapped in puragtory). The message was then, as it is now, if you don't pay up, we cannot vouch for the safety of your soul. Chruch policy is that only people who have been properly prepared and educated (counselled) about the sacraments can actually receive them. If you deny the counselling, you deny the sacrament. Father Chicon has reinstated the purgatory chantry.

Of course, most of the parents and children involved have little or no intention of attending mass on a regular basis. They send their children to catechism because they feel that some traditions, whether they actually mean anything anymore or not, have to be obeyed. Father Chicon is not just denying people the sacraments, he's denying them their traditions and heritage.

The Bulletproof Beast...
apropos of the new Joe Klein "tell-all" about potential 2008 presidential candidate Hillary (It's Takes a village...) Clinton, I have but one thing to say to my fellow republicans: if you haven't already noticed, scandal seems to follow in this woman's wake like seagulls follow garbage scows, and after all this time, all the scandals, all the miserable, petty details, she's still dancing between raindrops. Clean that drool off your lower lips and forget Klein's book.

When it comes to shit, it just doesn't stick to Her Heinous.

To begin with, if you were expecting salacious details of tawdry business deals, steamy extra-marital affairs, White House shenanigans a plenty, then go ahead and read the book. I'm sure there's a few morsels of Bill and Hill scandals that haven't seen the light of day. Some of them might even be entertaining. However, if you're expecting one of the potential scandalous tidbits upon the printed page to jump up, come to life like a freakazoid Frankenstein's monster, and put short shrift to the apparent Heir Apparent, then forget it. Save yourself the heartache and the ulcer.

Something we should have learned from 8 years of All Clintons All the Time: it does not matter how sleazy her husband is. It doesn't matter how sleazy she is, she always manages to weasel out. So, why bother? It's not like a revelation about Hillary stealing the White House silverware would actually shock anyone (we kinda expect it), nor would anyone be surprised if it turns out it was actually the Hildebeest that ran over Buddy the White House Labrador. It's not as if people actually think the woman is nice. You can't make the charges stick, and even if you did manage to get her frock just a wee bit dirty, the media and a million supporters crawl out of the woodwork to defend her. Eventually, they talk so much, and change the subject so much, that we all forget exactly what we're talking about in the first place, and Hilly goes merrily upon her way.

Unless there's something so completely out of left field, so egregious, so disgusting, the book helps no one on my side of the isle to score political points. So drop it. Joe Klein will not be an avenging angel, a messiah delivering us from the specter of a Clinton presidency that comes equipped with it's own tits (instead of some intern's).

And I wish to God that some of my fellow 'pubbies would get the idea out of their heads that Mr. Klein's book is a godsend. Nothing in there will ever dissuade the true believers in Hillary's camp, and the rest of us are under the impression that her picture already appears besides "SCANDALOUS" in the dictionary.

Heck, we're still three years away from the election, for the love of God!

In the final analysis, if you need to formulate a strategy for beating "the smartest woman in the world" in 2008, I'll give you a start on it:

Simply let her talk. She will eventually talk herself in to a hole anyway, because she's not as smart as she thinks she is. People already see through the phony support for the troops, the zeal with which she appears to be fighting the war on terror, her sudden urge to be a fiscally responsible senator, and the session with Billy Graham. Heck, it was obvious after the last election that most democrats would be back in church the following day. In short, all this "moving to the center" nonsense that Dick Morris says she's doing is simply too transparent to even the dumbest amongst us.She can get away with it, in terms of seeming to thumb her nose at the rest of the democratic party, because she's popular (like almost-Oprah popular) with democrats and they could forgive her "moving to the center" because they know in their heart of hearts that she means none of it. The only thing they could never forgive her for would be divorcing Bill to marry Newt Gingrich.

So let her talk. Let her put her ideas (actually someone else's with her name written in crayon over them) on the table and let her defend them. More importantly, ask her for the details. Because there will be none. She'll mouth a laundry list of platitudes which will all sound so scrummy we'll ask for seconds before we've finished what's on our plate. And she'll dish out even more, so much so that we'll forget to ask what the recipe is. When someone finally calls her on that, the details, the specifics, she'll stand there like a deer caught in your headlights.

That's how you beat Hillary Clinton. You do not do it by expecting some journalist to do it for you.

The Price of Surrender...
Vis-a-vis yesterday's rant about the "Surrender Now" crowd, I'd like to follow up and think a little bit about what packing up and leaving Iraq might cost us.

To begin with, we'd suffer a huge international black eye (even worse than what we've gotten already) if we leave Iraq a (bigger) basket case than it is already. We'd be in the same position as the European empires at the end of the Second World War, running off and leaving a trail of busted countries, cultures and governments in our wake. Morally, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to at least put things in some semblance of order and leave them in a position to fend for themselves. The United States is obligated, regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs. This point, I believe, stands on it's own, irregardless of what side of the war debate you stand on.

Cutting and running also encourages others who might have evil in their hearts to surmise that the United States doesn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight. The second we leave an Iraq still in the throes of disarray, we invite even more terrorist attacks as the terrorists at work today can claim victory for having chased the "Great Satan from the Holy Ground of Iraq". This is not the same as cutting and running on the South Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt sewer which deserved to be flushed down the toilet, and our enemies were not in a position to strike at he United States (the Russians were too sane, the Chinese too weak, and the Vietnamese too exhausted, at the time). The battle over Communism in SE Asia could be lost because in the end, there was no direct consequence to the United States, as opposed to the Vietnamese themselves, the Cambodians, the Laotians, etc. Leaving Iraq would have direct consequences for the US: although most countries in the Middle East couldn't muster enough military force to beat a troop of Boy Scouts with the runs, their wacky, Islamo-fascist citizens seem quite ready to martyr themselves on America's landmarks. Provided they can kill a bunch of us too, of course.

Why Do They Do It?
The news this evening made a great deal of fuss this evening about the convictions and sentencing of the Rigas, pere and son. These are the guys that once owned Adelphia Communications, a cable television empire, and looted their company to the tune of about 1 billion (with a B) dollars. Mr. Rigas, Sr. faces 20 years in the slammer, unless old age (he's 80) or his cancer, kills him first. Mr. Rigas, Jr. faces 30 years in prison.

The sentences brought about a great deal of speculation vis-a-vis Mr. Bernie Ebbers, the former CEO of World-Com, who faces his sentencing next week. If the judge in this case was not willing to show mercy to an 80 year old man, the thinking goes, then Ebbers is in a heap of trouble. World-Com, by the way, was an 11 Billion dollar boondoggle. Additional speculation related to Dennis Kozlowski (Global Crossing) and what he might face when he gets in front of a judge.

The whole situation of runaway CEO's, the huge amounts of money they seem to either borrow without promise of repayment from their companies, or waste on the mere accumulation of useless wealth, leads one to ask what at first blush to be commonsense questionsHow do guys who are supposed to be financial geniuses manage to get themselves into these situations? I mean, don't they already make a ton of money as a CEO? What leads them to loot the corporate coffers with such reckless abandon and why do their individual boards of directors allow them to get away with it?

As to why, my theory is that in this day and age, wealth by itself no longer confers any distinction. I read recently (I can recall if it was Forbes or Fortune) that the number of millionaires in the United States has doubled in the last 10 years. Once upon a time, having a million dollars in the bank was considered a big deal. Now that just about anyone can do it, it's not all that exclusive a club anymore. Ego dictates that since you cannot impress with wealth, you now have to impress with ostentatious displays of wealth. The Enron crowd, Kozlowski, the Rigas, et. al., all have multiple homes in the most tony neighborhoods (Georgetown, the Upper West Side, Aspen, Malibu, etc). They all have private jets. I'm sure they all have more automobiles and yachts than they could ever hope to drive or sail. Mere possessions no longer work as a measure of distinction. Now the idea is to have something no one else has.

So, the Rigas built themselves 18-hole golf courses on their properties. Kozlowski got himself an $8,000 shower curtain or somesuch nonsense, and a $16,000 umbrella stand, not to mention the $2 million toga party he threw for his wife at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. If it can be overdone or overblown, then rest assured, it will be. Penis envy writ large.

And who pays for it? Certainly not the guy who wants it. He can simply raid his corporation and because he's a "genius", no one will question him, or press him very hard to pay it back. The shareholder is shafted so that the CEO can have platinum-plated toilet seats, and a full-time ass wiper in his 4,300 square foot, italian marbled, centrally heated, bathroom. The one on the EAST side of the 40 room mansion.

This lead me to start wondering about something else that seems to bother the financial world greatly to the point of becoming a very dangerous fixation: the fascination with corporate earnings. Now, earnings, naturally, have value as a measure of the profitability of company, which invites other investors, which attracts customers, and so on and so on, as they taught us in Economics 101. In that sense, the better the earnings, the better the company. However, when you stop to consider that the number of millionaires is doubling every few years, it brings up a very interesting proposition (and I hope someone actually does some research on it, because it's beyond my tiny brain). We live in an investor society now. Fifty years ago, when perhaps 1 in 80 people had any interest in the stock market, earnings, while important, did not mean all that much (comparatively). The only people that were going to get paid dividends were that 1 in 80, and they were happy with what they got. Nowadays, when 1 in 10 people actually own stock, those original 1 in 80 are quite pissed. They just don't quite make what they used to, having to split it with the peasants, so to speak. The only way to keep the big investors happy is to increase earnings, which gives a bigger return per individual investor.

All of which leads to some very stupid business decisions, prime among them, giving the guy who pumped those earnings up the ability to steal. That's his reward for keeping the old money happy. And what does he do with it? He buys a $16,000 umbrellas stand or gets himself sentenced to 30 years in prison when he's caught juggling the books to artificially keep those earnings up. The CEO also (not always) receives a large portion of his compensation in stock options (meaning he's also looking for the biggest return he can get) and gives him an additional incentive to steal and cheat.

What's the solution? Heck if I know. But I'd line 'em up and shoot 'em. After the concrete enema.

Those Voices in the Wilderness...
As of late, the news has been even more chock-full of anti-war screeds than usual. I can certainly think of a few reasons as to why (there's an election coming up, the typical response of people who have not "been heard" is to scream louder, etc.), but the reason, more than likely, is that there seems to be little else to actually talk about.

Going into year three of the Iraqi experiment and we still haven't had an Iraqi center enter the NBA draft (straight from high school, no less). Iraqis are not buying Doritos by the shipful. Martha Stewart has yet to unveil her new line of home furnishings inspired by Iraqi handicrafts. Bobby Flay and Emril have not been cooking up any Iraqi dishes on the Food Network. If none of these things are happening, according to most Americans, then just what is?

Well, at least once a day somewhere in Iraq a bunch of people get blown up in front of a police station or standing in line at a market. Several times a day, someone in Iraq is being kidnapped and beheaded, after being forced at gunpoint (after the mandatory torture period is over) to make an impassioned plea for G.W. Bush and Co. to get out of Dodge and let the "peace-loving people of Iraq" get on with their dreary, 7th century lives. In the meantime, anything that could possibly be classified as a "good" event in Iraq is barely mentioned. Like for example; thousands of Iraqi men lining up to take jobs as police officers despite the risk, a disparate Iraq population taking great pains to establish a fair and equitable government or American soldiers aiding Iraqis in thousands of simple, work-a-day ways like administering inoculations or building schools and hospitals.

The reasons for this are obvious: the story about an American G.I. toiling away to build a schoolhouse for Iraqi children is a) not sexy to network executives and b) starts some people in these parts to wonder why we can build schools in Iraq and not here. One reason is a simple business decision (i.e. violence sells, and the more vicious, random and misdirected the violence is, the better. Especially if it makes a back-handed political statement), and the other is merely common sense (we're supposed to be fighting for OUR children, you know).

However, I believe there are far more insidious, and yet all-to-common, factors at play. The first is the the great majority of the American public (we'll call them the Great, Unwashed Masses) has an attention span which can be measured in MPH. Unless something explodes every fifteen seconds, or unless there's tits on display, they simply lose interest. Give them anything that requires them to think, which involves patience, or which involves an historical perspective, and they immediately begin to watch The Real Gilligan's Island. Mary-Ann in a wet t-shirt is so much more interesting in the inner-workings of the new Iraqi government.

A second factor in the recent upswing of anti-war "news" has to be the sheer volume of anti-war, anti-American and, more specifically, anti-Bush rhetoric from the same old circles. Democrats, of course, can be expected to wail the loudest (and they certainly do), and every piece of bad news from the front is a piece of good news for them. Every one of the political dissidents on this issue, however, can reliably expected to have a convenient barin fart when it comes to accurately recalling their own actions at the beginning of this whole thing. You know, the Congressional debates, and ultimately, votes, that allowed the President to commit American troops to Iraq, and the spending bills that continue to fund ongoing military and civilian activities in Iraq. Democrats can scream about how opposed to the war they are, but they cannot simply resort to blaming the guy on watch when he couldn't do it without their tacit support. This tactic failed when it came to pinning 9/11 on Bush (it was democrats who erected barriers to anti-terrorism incentives, who hamstrung the CIA and FBI and who defunded the military. By the way, that charge was led by John Kerry, in case y'all forgot). Let's also not forget that Iraq was a problem constantly ready to boil over during 8 years of the Clinton administration, which treated Saddam Hussein as a hemorrhoid rather than as a cancer.

Not to be outdone, of course, are the international critics. European countries (particularly France and Germany) which see the United States as a threat to their them, in all senses of the word. The do-nothing-but-rack-up-a-ton-of-parking-tickets brigade at the U.N.. Amnesty International (which hasn't met a gulag it didn't like, unless it was run by a democratic nation, and which has been dead silent on the dictatorship of Mugabe for all I know). The ACLU (which hardly exists in the American Spirit anymore and protects not so much Civil Liberties as Civil Libertines). And last, but not least, the communist and former communist states of Russia and China, which simply opposed an Iraq invasion on the basis that it would shut down a source of ill-gotten hard currency for poison gases. Add the faculty of Berkeley and three quarters of the Kennedy School at Harvard for good measure. They're still upset that Oil-for-Food-for-The-Benefit-of-France was upset by Bush, Blair, Powell, Rice, et. al. for having the temerity to insist that the United Nations actually enforce it's own resolutions.

Yet another factor at play is the fear America itself inspires when it has legitimately been aroused from it's typical torpor. September 11 not only woke America up, it gave it's politicians and military an excuse to be an active force in the world. Naturally, we'd like to be a positive force, but unfortunately, we've had to be a mostly negative force in terms of bombing, strafing, etc. The positive stuff cannot start until all the negative has been purged, and the longer the negative continues, the greater the chance that we'll just get frustrated and be done with it. Permanently. Part of this fear arises from the realization that should America actually find a justification to, it could lay waste the entire planet and there's not much anyone else could do about it. Not going to happen, but it's a fact that most astute statesmen must always keep in the back of their tiny minds. Another fear-inducing aspect is what would happen if we actually succeeded --- if you're a tin pot dictator oppressing your people, you're next on the list, perhaps. Of course, with the United States committed for the long-haul in the Middle East, keeping very close tabs on Iran and circling like a vulture over North Korea, you don't have very many places left to sell Fiats, Gitanes and Brockwursts. If these regions should fall under American sway (militarily, politically or culturally), it would literally wreck most Western economies.

Which brings us to the plaintive wailing. All of it says pretty much the same thing: surrender now. Which begs the question:why should we? The reasons given, of course, make little to no sense. Those reasons revolve around the typical stuff: we're running concentration camps, we're killing innocent people, we're wrecking our own economy, we're wasting American lives in a quixotic dream. All of these reasons were the staple of the anti-war crowd in Vietnam. And both World Wars. And the American Civil War, too. In fact, they've been the basis of every anti-war movement since the beginning of recorded history.

American Gulags? Last time I looked, not one person has died in US Custody at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, the prisoners there get three meals, prayer time, medical treatment (including dental, mental health services and eyeglasses --- it's a better deal than Medicare), hot water, and somewhat comfortable accommodations. Compare that with the mass graves in Iraq, and even in Serbia, in Europe's backyard. Compare the treatment of Islamic prisoners in Cuba to the treatment afforded Western hostages in Iraq and other shitholes across the Middle East. No one is being mutilated and decapitated on the internet in Gitmo. In the cases where there have been abuses by US troops or officials (Abu Graib, Baghram, etc), punishment is being meted out, the guilty are being called to account. Stalin never did anything like that. Meanwhile, closer to home, we're still debating the utility of the Patriot Act, and it's consequences, without mentioning that no one has yet been prosecuted under it (which also means that no case has been overturned due to constitutional review under it), and that the Patriot Act was passed in true, democratic fashion, by a majority of both houses of Congress. Let's be honest: if you're against the Patriot Act, then vote against it. But don't be cynical and insist that it's unconstitutional" or a "threat to Civil Liberties" secure in the knowledge that should it actually prevent a terrorist act, you can proudly point to your "yes" vote.

Killing innocent people? Last time I looked, Arabs are killing more Arabs than American troops are. Iraqi "insurgents" (let's call them what they are please, which is terrorists) kill more Iraqis on a daily basis than American bullets do. In fact, those self-same car bombers are more likely to come from other places around the Middle East to engage in a massive bloodletting of fellow Muslims. When the scumbags do manage to show themselves in any numbers, we do manage to kill them, and unfortunately, some innocents do happen to die as well. But ask yourself this: is that because the US goes hunting with the intention of killing innocents or is it because the bad guys insist on fighting from inside hospitals, mosques, schools and residential neighborhoods?

As for the economic arguments, the United States can easily afford to fight the war in Iraq. With one hand tied behind it's back and it's eyes closed, no less. What's being spent in Iraq is a fraction of what we spend on indoctrination (i.e. education) in this country every year. If you believe that the difficulties in Iraq are directly tied to recent economic problems here, particularly the price of gasoline, then you're an idiot. Many of the same people who complain about $2.50 gasoline were also the first to shout "No blood for Oil!". They're also the same dolts who find $2 gasoline abominable but who say nothing about $4 milk. You can't have it both ways: you can't come out and say we fought a war to steal Iraqi oil, and then complain that you can't drive 4sblock to work without taking out a second mortgage.If anything, the recent spike in the price of gasoline should put the "Haliburton" conspiracies to rest. The actual causes of the rise in gasoline prices have very little to do with war. The are, in no order whatsoever:

1. There has been no new oil refinery built in the United States since the 1970's. Even with the one we have running over capacity, they still cannot meet the demand.
2. The EPA has regulated us into a gasoline crunch by mandating that gasoline come in 16 different varieties, each specially blended to match conditions in individual regions of the country.
3. The emerging economies of India and China are consuming ever-increasing amounts of oil.
4. OPEC has slowed production of crude to a) take advantage of the higher process, and b) try to reign in US policy in the Middle East by indirect methods. Saudi Arabia does not want to be next on the list of "terror-sponsoring nations" but cannot directly confront the United States.
5. There have been at least two major fires at one Texas refinery site in the last three years. That has to slow production down greatly.

The American economy could very easily take $3 gasoline and not be too adversely affected, if we were honest about it and willing to make the sacrifice.

As for the sacrifice of American soldiers, well, that's what they're there for. They all volunteered with the knowledge that they might have to go to war one day, subject to the orders of those duly elected. The duly elected make decisions regarding war and peace, and while Bush might be the Commander-in-Chief, he didn't just wake up one day and send 150,000 Americans to Iraq. It was a decision made by means of debate; in Congress and in the public square of the media, and in the end, the American people gave him permission to do it through their elected leaders. Of course, the nature of any military operation is that it's near impossible to pull one off without losing anyone. At the end of the day, 1,700 American dead (to date), while tragic, is not anything near to a military disaster, and that sacrifice has not been in vain when you stop to consider the potential they have unleashed in the Middle East: Iraqi elections, Lebanese democracy movements, Libya playing ball and the Saudis extending the franchise.

The voices very often have salient points to make, and they should never go unheeded, however, this is not one of those times to listen. When it comes to Iraq, we also have to take into account a moral imperative. Iraq may not have been a functioning, stable, free state in the terms that we understand, but now that we've knocked out what passed for a government, bombed the place flat, disrupted commerce and removed simple services like electricity and running water, we do have a duty to stay until a modicum of those things can be restored, either by our own force, our own treasure or by the Iraqis themselves. For those who believe that the Iraqi "adventure" was mistake, ask yourself how much worse it would be if after having destroyed, we then abandoned.

Battling Leviathan...
In a few days I will be sitting in a courtroom, dealing with minions of the Fed'ral Gubmint, in a Quixotic attempt to get them to cough up benefits that I only happened to have paid for. I'm not looking forward to it at all, quite frankly, because I have a deep and abiding distrust when it comes to monolithic institutions doing the right thing.

The "Right Thing" in this case would be the Social Security Administration ponying up 19 months worth of disability payments that I'm supposed to be entitled to by virtue of the fact that I happened to have paid for them. By the way, this is a batrtle that has been waged for the better part of three years now.

How we got to this point is a study in why someone should take a sledgehammer to any institution or business that somehow manages to become too large.

Way back in September 2001, I happened to be in the flight path of a jumbo jet that ultimately struck the World Trade Center. Subsequent to that event, I found myslef covered in debris from the Twin Tower's collapse, and within a few months, began suffering from a host of mental health-related issues which forced me to stop working in the spring oif 2003. All of these issues were related to the September 2001 attacks, but I had tried very hard to fight through them before deciding that I was in need of serious treatment. In December of 2003, I attended an evaluation session at the local Social Security office in which a psychologist with access to nine months of medical records managed to speak to me for all of 20 minutes before deciding I wasn't psychotic. Whioch was good, because I never claimed to be and that wasn't my diagnosis. However, her evaluation was necessary as to whether or not I would collect benefits from the government.

So, here we are, with a psychologist who has a pile of paper from other medical professionals which stae that I suffer from PTSD, Agoraphobia, clinical depression and Anxiety disorders. She determines that I can wash myself, feed myself and otherwise have not bought an arsenal of unlicenced automatic weapons. She acknowledges the fact that I had been in therapy for nine months, taking medication to control symptoms, etc. At the end of the day, her evaluation can be summed up in one telling sentence: "the patient suffers from a very bad case of nerves", which was cause for denial of benefits.

Now, I don't know where she went to medical school, but "very bad case of nerves" doesn't sound very medical, or even clinical, to me. Anyway, I was entitled to an appeals hearing, had I wanted one, and you're damn right I did. It is now June of 2005, and I'm about to get my appeal. By my count, that's 18 months just to get an appeal.

While I've been waiting, I've been doing some research on how the Social Security Adminsitration actually handles people who file disability claims. What I have found out is enough to make you jaw drop through the floor.

Amazingly, approximately 95% of all first-time applicants for Social Security Disability benefits are routinely rejected, despite the legitimacy of their medical claims. I have heard of people with missing limbs, deadly cancers, AIDS and worse, being denied benefits for reasons that can only make sense to a bureaucrat. In the meantime, while you're waiting for your appeal, you'd do well to retain the services of a lawyer, a Social Security Disability Consultant and a Voodoo priestess, because you will be sure to require their services.

In order for the United States Government to turn over to me benefits for which I have previously paid for via taxes (for which I never got to vote for, by the way), I have to retain the ability to sue my own government and collect a team of professionals whose only function is to part the red tape by ensuring the proper forms and procedures were followed, which by law, th SSA is supposed to do anyway? Is it just me or is there something fundamentally wrong with this scenario?

So, off I go on Tuesday to sit in a courtroom with an Administrative Judge, who is going to pore over three-year old documentation for a malady I no longer suffer from and my greatest nightmare runs like this:

1. He or she is busy and just decides that the bureaucrats were right, and don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out.

2. He or she just doesn't have enough information to go on, would I please get that extra paperwork and schedule another hearing for fall of 2012?

3. While I might be entitled to benefits, I am not eligible for them in the full amount, and I will be sitting here waiting for a check that covers my lawyer's fees and nothing else.

4. The case is dismissed arbitrarily and summarily.

I'll let ya know what happens.