I tuned out of this treatise in the second paragraph, when the author referred to "a former Texas rock band's clever name: Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Dope." The band is the Austin Lounge Lizards, they are not a rock band, they still exist, and the song is "Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Drugs." This may seem a minor concern, but getting simple facts straight is a sign of meaningful communication.

In perusing the rest of the article, I found it to be a pretty meaningless exercise in semantics. The polar ice caps are melting. The worldwide mass economic system is collapsing. Our system of social order is disintegrating. There are too many people on the planet. We are threatened by pandemics of uncontrollable diseases. Usable resources are becoming depleted, especially oil and water. To spend one's energy on semantics is just plain stupid.

If we want a term for advancing human existence on this planet, how about civilizationist? From this perspective, policies and programs would focus on what makes possible and improves human civilization. Old dichotomies like "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative" would no longer have any relevance. Actually, they have no relevance now, except in the minds of their believers. These divides are models of reality, and have outlived their usefulness.

"Conservatism" in particular is now in disgrace. It is really just a euphemism for mafia, a loose confederation of crony capitalists, religious fanatics, and war enthusiasts. That doesn't make "liberalism" the honorable alternative. What brought disrepute to "liberalism" in the past was the paternalism and coercive nature of its practice. School busing is the most glaring example. It's a pretty Neanderthal approach: Ugh! Integration good! Busing make integration! Let's bus! Meanwhile, the condition of the vast majority of "African Americans" continues to decline.

Looking at the mass information media as a benchmark of our level of civilization, the mere fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are even on the air speaks volumes about the challenge we face. We may not live to see an advanced civilization, but we can at least move in that direction if we shed the chains of past mental constraints.

It's kind of a moot point about Bush at this point. We all know he's a total piece of crap as a human being. The real criticism should be directed at our ruling elite: the political "establishment," the news media, and the corporate power structure.

Somehow it was acceptable to have a completely worthless human being for president of the "United States." A military deserter, insider trader, drug and alcohol addict, who took pleasure in executions.

Not only was this acceptable, but it was preferred. Bush was not elected. The political elite, in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, deposited him in office. Indeed, during the Bush era, criminality was the modus operandi for the political and corporate elite. The same corporate elite, I might add, that is now lining up for "bailouts."

Nothing has been learned from this. Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State under Bush I, was asked during the fall campaign if Sarah Palin was qualified to be president. He answered "Not yet. But she will be." No standards. "Republicans" are almost universally criminal.

John McCain ran what was essentially a lying, fear-mongering, demagogic campaign for president. As such, that makes him a criminal. Good riddance.

The only question about Bush should be which court jurisdiction he should be remanded to - the Hague or the Federal system. I think both would be appropriate. Federal for treason, criminal negligence, lying the country into war, crony contract awards, and corruption of the justice system; the Hague for war crimes, kidnapping, torture, and murder. He could serve his several lifetimes of sentences concurrently. He should be made to work. Hard labor, I think it's called.

Obama probably doesn't understand the depth and complexity of the challenge. He needs to break loose from his advisers and find his own voice, both domestically and internationally.

I think the way he can do this internationally is to visit both "India" and "Pakistan." The stature Obama has in the world is because of his mixed "racial" background. He is a living symbol of harmony and reconciliation between supposedly different "races."

The animosity between "India" and "Pakistan" is rooted in religious prejudice and old fashioned rapaciousness. There's nothing unique about it. It could just as easily be "Christians" versus the "Pagans," the "Saracens," the "Jews," or the "Heretics."

Like JFK in an earlier era, Obama can have great influence wherever he goes. It's a double-edged sword, though. He has to be up to the task, to be, to some degree, the man as great as the myth. If he turns out to be a lightweight, or to be lacking in vision and competence, then the mystique will vaporize.

It's not enough to be better than Bush. Virtually anyone can do that. The times call for someone great, and anything less can result in chaos, here and there. Like it or not, the "U.S." has anointed itself with the role of the leader of the "free" world. Also, the "world's only superpower." As such, we have do do something super. So far, all we've shown recently is that we have the power to place the dumbest, most criminal incompetent possible at the helm of our power juggernaut, foisting war, kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, murder, and corruption on the planet. If we get it wrong this time, bye bye "world's only superpower," hello "Rome."