What you are missing and keep assuming is that we are fighting to keep oil from Iraq flowing. We do not.

For as much of an argument as can be made that this war is to control Iraq's oil, since 1980 every effort we've made has been to keep it and Iran's oil off the market. The last thing our petro leaders seem to want is Iran or Iraq (or Venezuala lately) from dumping oil on the world market at cheap prices. During the Iran Iraq war, oil was being torpedoed in ships off the gulf. Our ships, ostensibly sent to protect oil deliveries, spent most of their time shelling oil platforms. Following Desert Storm I, Iraq's oil deliveries were severly restricted, allegedly to punish Saddam. Since Desert Storm II, oil production is now less than what it was during the boycott of the 1990s.

What this has meant for our petro-politicions is a huge jump in the value of the oil reserves they do control. It also opens up their vast holdings in oil sands and shale for development. This isn't about keeping oil cheap and available, its about keeping it expensive and out of other's hands.

Worst case scenario: Iraq pumps oil like rum for a drunken sailor and ships it all to China. China becomes a dominant economic power, like Japan in the 80's. We get our oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigerio, Norway, Alaska, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. It may cost us oh about 3.50 a gallon, still cheap compared to Europe and we may be forced to conserve and shift to enviromental friendly alternative energy.

Of course, you can drink the kool aid and think China will use all that oil to build huge oil powered arks to send their million man army across the pacific to conquer us and force us to worship Confucious. (or nuke us for no apparant reason, just like that new reality show Jericho - I mean really, has anyone actually heard from Nebraska lately?)

Bottom line, this isn't about cheap oil. Its about generals playing with tanks, and captains of industry playing with tankers.

Obviously, this letters section has taken a turn from being about OJ and whether Ms. Dickerson is a bad writer, to a rant by single women as to why all the good men are taken and the available ones are jerks or murderers, and a retort by the available men that all complaining single women should be horsewhipped.

My suggestion is to find someone to address this topic directly. They don't have to be a good writer. The article doesn't even have to be more than a paragraph. Its the letters that will provide years of enjoyment.

Ignore the man behind the compelling solutions curtain.

1967: General Westmoreland asked for, and received, 500,000 troops in Vietnam but only until security had been achieved for South Vietnam.

Isn't that a bit redundant?

Besides, where will they get their material? I don't think Mother Jones has a news station yet.

It won't work. Dennis Miller already proved the right has no sense of humor, and they don't do nuance.

I'll bet Harold tasted delicious. Unless you're a true vegan being shocked about raising and slaughtering a turkey is far less disturbing than buying one of those frozen Butterball hormone mutants and thinking they died happily or weren't real living animals. If it shocks you, don't eat meat. If you do, buy local and true free range and get over yourself.

Also, giving the turkey a name doesn't make it a pet. Ever try to pet a turkey? It won't fetch your slippers, roll over or play catch, and will just as easily peck your eyes out as look at you. They are ornery creatures.

The article was mouth wateringly delicious. Kudos to Novella for raising her own turkey. Enjoy those leftovers.

Like a previous poster said:

Its a turkey! Listen, those cute talking turkeys you see each year about this time in comics? Those are comics. Turkey's aren't smart, they don't have self awareness, and I seriously doubt Harold was thinking of anything other than his next meal when he slaughtered. He definitely wasn't thinking "And after all I've done for you, Novella? This is what it comes to?" Or "Put the axe down Novella, I'm sure we can talk this out. I know a great tofurkey recipe."

Speaking of recipes, I do agree that a description of the meal including her recipe would have made the article even better.

Harold. Its whats for dinner.

If he had answered truthfully and admitted that, knowing back then what he knows now, he would have drowned the twerp in a water hazard when he was still a teen, that could would really bum Dubya out. That is if he actually read newspapers.

Some beef is actually better raw then cooked and all meat is lousy over cooked. Our original descendants did eat meat raw. It's why we have bicuspids. Our nails are mere vestiges of talons, alas.

We cook pig and bird to avoid trichinosis and salmonella.

As for the bleeding hearts over this, I seriously doubt peer pressure drove Novella to order a bird by mail to raise and kill in San Francisco. It's not exactly Des Moines if you get my drift.