...who has the 'good' vs 'evil' mentality. It's the country itself. You see it on every pundit show, where anyone who even sort of suggests that Americans could be at fault for anything is pounced upon and derided as an America hater or a traiter or an appeaser or whatever. And you see this on every topic, not just political topics.

Thus country doesn't tolerate complex, nuanced arguments anymore. It will not tolerate any sort of criticism of what is seen as 'the American people.' That's a terrible thing, because we're a democracy and in a democracy it is always the people who are responsible for what a democracy does. If we can't criticize Americans when America is going wrong, then we will never be able to fix America.

The real problem with Bush (IMO) is that he's not so much a 'decider' as a defaulter. Unlike Clinton, he never even presumes to stand up to America's worst impulses, he just goes along with them and endorses them. Americans don't like taxes, so he gave them tax breaks even though the tax breaks ate the surplus. Americans wanted to kick ass after 9/11 so he went after Saddam and invaded Iraq--even without any clear idea of why he was doing that. Americans had no idea what to do next after invading Iraq, so now neither does George Bush.

...that every guy thinks he's misunderstood (or misunderestimated). In reality, only a very few are. Bush isn't one of them.

...it's a policing problem. The insurgents are setting off bombs and getting away with it. The more bombs they get away with, the more chaos they sow, and the easier it is for them to get away with setting off bombs.

With enough police and enough informants, the insurgents can't get away with it. That's what Saddam had in place before we invaded--a network of police and informants in every alley and street. That's why nobody was blowing up things under Saddam, even though all the political and sectarian tensions were the same.

And that's why we're not going to 'win' in Iraq. We are simply not ever going to put in enough police to control the insurgents. The cost is too high. It would require either a draft or an equally ruinous expenditure on foriegn mercenaries.

'Fighting' the insurgency is just useless. It would be like fighting car jackers in Detroit--you may kill some car jackers, but the collateral damage would be so high that the neighbors will end up supporting the car jackers. At that point, you've lost absolutely.

There is NO military solution to Iraq. There's nobody to fight because there's nobody to surrender or kill off. No matter how many insurgents we might finish off, more insurgents will be developed, just by the act of killing them.

War is about killing people and breaking things. The more people we kill and the more things we break in Iraq, the more resilient and entrenched the insurgency will become.

The plastic ones like shells work well and are easy to set. Use peanut butter as everyone says.

Glue traps will make you feel like Mouse Hitler. And you can't reuse them.

...and Kerry flipped a salute. Neither really ran on the issues or their expertise.

...would be a great idea, and highly subversive. Couldn't Salon arrange to do it?

...I note the complete lack of BS. Her factually based, level headed common sense could play very well in the election. This is not something that either Kerry or Gore had to any degree.

...there is no more reason to believe that there's a God who writes "TINKLES IN THE TUB" in the sky then there is to believe that penquins can talk. He's simply pointing in a gentle way how absurd it is to believe that there's some giant master of the Universe out there that somehow cares if we tinkle in the tub or not.

There's no cop out here.

...and hasn't been for decades.

This cartoon makes me laugh and that's all it needs to do. Is it slyly self contradictory? Yep, and that's funny too.

No pardon.

Bush has yet to show that he gives a shit for anyone else's problems, so why would he start now?

He probably thinks Libby betrayed him by not shooting himself in the head.

Will Bush lose more of his base if he doesn't pardon Libby? Yes, but Bush doesn't care.

Try on some 1965 for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKoV1yJnqAI

Again it has to be admitted that I actually have no more connection with Bob Dylan in 1965 than a baby born just this morning. But somebody has to stick up for 1965.

Working IS a waste of a human life in most situations.

And just how is 'democracy' in the workplace supposed to change that, if true?

Suppose your job is to punch holes in paper. Now we have 'democracy' in the workplace. Doesn't somebody still have to punch the holes in the paper? Won't it be you? Will you like it better then?

If it's the democratic vote of the workplace that says you have to punch holes in paper, why is that better then getting your orders from a boss? At least you can bitch to your fellow workers about your boss. But who do you bitch to when it's your fellow workers who are your boss?

Neither you or Cary is thinking this thing through. A job is not about doing what YOU want to do, it's about doing what OTHER people need or want done. Getting adequately paid for it is probably the best most people can ever hope for. And even that's not necessarily a given.