In their zealous (and dysfunctional) need to take charge of the situation after September 11th (perhaps because they knew they were culpable for negligence at the least in allowing it to happen when the evidence to prevent it was in their hands), the Bush regime handled a wide variety of... whatever they chose to call them in that particular week... in ways that make it impossible to prosecute them or even get useful information from them (if we follow our own Constitution, that is).

There were a wide variety of experts who could (and, no doubt, did) try to advise Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al regarding how to deal with those they might sweep up in their efforts to protect the nation most effectively. They were all ignored, if not fired, for their efforts. In the end the Bushies' wild west cowboy approach, which they insisted on using despite all evidence to the contrary, will yield this nation... precisely nothing except the disdain of justice-minded people around the world. What a bunch of pathetic bunglers!

If a person of Arab ancestry ran around the United States proclaiming that America was going to "lose a city" to a terrorist attack, that person would be picked up, sent to a foreign country where they could be tortured in order to force them to reveal what they know about said "terrorist attack."

Why should Newt not have the benefit of the policies for which he so rapturously proclaims support? It seems to me he's entirely too confident of his proclamations regarding the U.S. losing a city. He doesn't say, we "may" lose a city. He says we "will." What's he talking about? What does he know? From what nefarious sources is he getting his information? He really does sound like a terrorist bragging to me.

"Free trade" and all it's corollary facets are just the latest expressions of a universal aspect of human nature. Lacking systems created for the express purpose of working in the opposite direction (yes, I'm talking regulation and/or the massive, routine redistribution of wealth), any economic system, be it communism, capitalism, socialism, feudalism, anarchism, eventually falls victim to the same forces: a group of people, operating within the system, eventually find a way to draw far more resources from that system than is justified by their contribution to the well being of those with whom they share that system. (Reinhold Niebuhr, paraphrased)

In other words, in any and every human system, unless those involved in that system are wise enough to take action to prevent it, the rich will eventually get exponentially richer, the poor will fall farther and farther behind until the poor feel as if they have nothing left to lose and nothing to offer to better the fate of their children and grandchildren but their own lives. Revolution always results, unless the breakdown of society (coupled with the penchant the rich have to blame everyone else for that breakdown as well as to point to others as scapegoats to prevent the general public from realizing what they, themselves are doing) has become so complete that the system is easily conquered by another nation. We were close to such a breakdown in the 1930's. It's likely BushCo has left such a destructive legacy that we'll be unable to avoid a similar fate no matter who's elected next. Anything we do to try to shift what's coming will leave those who have benefited most from the current system screaming bloody murder, but unless things are successfully shifted those screams may come to reflect reality.

Although Elephantman and his friends seem to think that the obscene wealth they're gathering to themselves in the fossil fuel industry and energy markets will allow them to separate themselves from the rest of us riffraff and breath different air than we do by building gated, domed communities as needed, they're wrong. May they choke on their wealth and their rank indifference to the well being of this marvelous planet we share and to future generations that will still have to survive here.

This was one of your clearest, best spoken posts ever, Andrew! Thanks for cutting through the B.S. to lay out what the issues really are, here!

Let's back off a bit and focus on what seems to be going on. On the one hand, lenders and credit card companies have tended to look at older folks (based on their experience with those of Brokaw's "greatest generation") as extraordinarily good risks for credit, which they were.

Now we have the boomers reaching retirement age in an era where retirement programs such as their parents have benefited from are no longer in place for the majority. As the first boomers, many of whom are still carrying large levels of debt, reach retirement age, they are likely to find their incomes considerably reduced, especially if their retirement funds are invested in equities. As the very predictable result, they will drop below the income requirements of the recent bankruptcy laws.

Boomers are not their parents. Even in their 60's they will continue to express the desire, inadvertently programmed into them by their doting parents, for "instant gratification" and hence, the ticket to a more comfortable (or perhaps survivable in some cases) retirement will be bankruptcy. Many of them will follow this path.

Statistically, the creditors should have seen this iceberg coming. It's not that there were not warning voices, but they were making so much money in the "now" of this quarter, doing what they were doing that they were loathe to slow the ship or set an adequate watch. It's likely this only gets worse. The question is, now that we have dismantled everything that was set in place in the 1930's in the effort to make this ship unsinkable, will we stay afloat? I seem to hear an orchestra playing "Nearer my God to thee..."