Michael Moore's SiCKO

A couple things in reference to Moore's latest smirky docuflick where he picks a fight with the health care industry. The system is broken, Moore contends, because too many people are denied access, and even those that have access are victims of an unwieldy profit-driven bureaucracy that is in constant antagonism with our best interests.

I find Michael Moore entertaining although frequently over the top. He does seem to tap into the "next big thing", whether it's school violence, the Bush debacle or, now, health care access and cost. If history is any judge, this movie will usher in a riveting consciousness for nationalized health... and maybe it's time.

SiCKO makes salient points, many of which I find compelling, but the movie definitely has its faults. Moore correctly points out that Canadians may wait in line for non-urgent services, but the queue is long only because all their citizens are in it. Here in the US we have less waiting time for MRI's and surgery partly because 20% of those within our borders are not plugged into the system and are thus not getting any non-urgent care.

One issue I had with Moore's movie was his use of young American expatriots living in France to get their opinion of a comparison of the health care systems in France and the US. Their stories of the French medical care were overwhelmingly positive (of course), but the care they received was predominantly for pregnancies and pediatric care, which by and large are positive experiences. Conversely, the US consumers of health care interviewed by Moore had progressive debilitating diseases, and such patients are often dissatisfied with their health care and its efficacy. He compares apples and oranges.

I did agree with his portrayal of the US system as an unwieldy bureaucracy which is nearly impossible to navigate. Having had some personal experience as a patient and family member of a patient, I can honestly say the bills from hospitals, doctors, labs and diagnostic centers make no sense and I thanked heaven every day that I had a comprehensive plan that only asked for my deductible.

Now I'll go on my rant:

Critics of Moore point out that his figure of 45 million Americans without health insurance is misleading. The proper breakdown shows that many of the uninsured are either illegal aliens, so they are not “Americans”, or are uninsured by choice with many making middle-class salaries.

"We hear a lot these days about 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance.
...According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)
In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)
...And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.
...14 million people without health insurance are eligible for government health care programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but choose not to enroll. (7) They represent %31 - nearly one third - of the uninsured in America.
...The U.S. has 12 million illegal immigrants who don't buy health insurance but still get health care.
...So, how many are truly uninsured? Around eight million. Just 18% of the 45 million that we hear about so often."

So what? The fact remains, at any given time 45 million people in this country do not have insurance. It doesn't matter why they don't have insurance, the fact is that they are not paying premiums and if they get sick they will be a burden on the system. The system is required to absorb all comers-- we do not turn away critically ill people-- and as such all people should be compelled to pay into the system. The “invincibles” and the wealthy poker players need to be taxed in order to pay for the care of the infirm.

Sure many folks choose to deny themselves health coverage, but that does not mean they will not get health care, it just means that they will either struggle to pay for it if needed, or they will default on the bill to the doctors and hospitals. Or, they will be lucky and never pay premiums and never get sick. All of these scenarios are counter-productive. Yes, we should all have free will to make choice in our lives, and the free market should be left to decide our fates. If someone wants to plays roulette with his finances and eschew health insurance, let him. The problem with this reasoning is that the hospitals and doctors do not have the reciprocal freedom to refuse treatment. Not a minute goes by that a middle class uninsured citizen doesn't enter an ER with a potentially life-threatening condition. Nobody denies them treatment. If a specialist is needed, one is assigned and the patient is attended. This is the law. Some specialists may be reluctant to come in on a dreary night to manage someone who they know will never pay the bill, but they come because they are compelled to come and they are compelled to take their turn covering the ER for such patients in order to maintain their hospital privileges. The charter of every acute care hospital mandates that they have specialists available to care for “unassigned” (read: uninsured) patients who need their care, so the hospitals by necessity transfer that mandate onto their specialist staff.. That means some physician will be called in to evaluate and manage this patient, using their hard-earned expertise, taking the risk of a bad outcome, fretting over proper care and perhaps staying up all night only to go into the office for a full day the following morning. And will the doctor get paid? Who knows? Perhaps. But they certainly won't get paid in any kind of timely manner. That's not a way to run a health care system. And I won't even go into the value of health maintenance and the reluctance of uninsured to seek preventive care. How many of those ER visits would have been unnecessary if the person had a regular physician? 38% of the uninsured population chooses not to pay health insurance premiums, and that's okay? We're talking about the middle-class who conceivably should know better, and that's okay?. Furthermore, any insurance program relies on healthy participants paying into the system thereby paying for the care needed for the sick participants. If only sick people have insurance, the system fails.

The second point is that fourteen million people are eligible for Medicaid but choose not to sign up. Again, those people are choosing to not provide an avenue to pay the providers of health care in the event it is needed. The ones who suffer are the providers who are compelled to care for the patients and can only hope that some paperwork is filled out in a timely manner so payment is forthcoming. The patients also suffer the consequences of denying themselves and their children preventive care. If someone is eligible for Medicaid, there's a reason. They are either unemployed by choice, unemployable or too young to have a job. Many of these folks do not have the wherewithal to seek help until it is needed, so to imply that they have access to care and their laziness is the main deterrent to such care is arrogant and counter-productive. The fact is they do not have insurance and that is all that is needed to know. I'll give a case study (named changed):

Carly is an 18 y/o female with a history of juvenile onset diabetes. Her family is dirt-poor, she was raised by a single mother, she just received her GED (government equivalency diploma) and her job pays $8.75 per hour. Fortunately, Carly has no kids (yet). She was told she was eligible for Medicaid, but since she has an income she must pay the first $800 of her health expenses. Before she was 18 her S-Chip Medicaid paid the entire amount. This means that all her diabetes tests strips, glucose monitor and insulin are paid out of pocket. If she has anything left over, she may pay for birth control. Maybe. Or she may decide to go to the beach. Who knows? When I saw her she did not have her Medicaid card, but I examined her and gave her birth control pill samples and told her that Planned Parenthood could provide birth control at a sliding scale cost. Who knows if she went. There are 34 ob/gyns in this town, but only a handful accept Medicaid as payment. Here are my questions:

Why do I have better health care coverage than Carly? Do I really deserve it more than she does? Why does Carly have to shop around to find a doctor to see her and then shop around to get her medicines and supplies at a reasonable cost? I don't. I just call any doctor in town, tell them which insurance I have and they welcome me into their practice. I take my prescription to any pharmacy and get it filled.

Let's assume that Carly really is just a lazy bum who fully understands the intricacies of the health care system, but just plain does not care about her responsibilities. Even though this is unlikely, let's make that assumption. Is it in society's best interest to put hurdles up for this young woman to get health care and birth control? From a pure self-interest standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to lavish care on this person in order to keep her as healthy as possible and-- almost as important-- not pregnant?

In a perfect world, the perfect Carlies would all be self-reliant stalwarts who overcome their poor circumstances, pull themselves up by their boot-straps, finish college and go on to support their aging mothers and siblings. Unfortunately, the Carlies we all see everyday live in the real world. They don't understand Ayn Rand, Milton Freidman and the supposed free market (but then, who really does?) The real Carlies need their community to embrace them and look out for them. The real Carlies need their doctors and nurses who take care of them to be remunerated the same as the doctors and nurses who are taking care of me. I would argue that those providers caring for the indigent should be paid more. I know this may sound weird, but think about it for a second. Nobody would benefit more than Carly from an interaction with the health care system, and society would benefit immensely by keeping Carly healthy and unpregnant, so why not provide incentive for health care providers to seek these people out and welcome them into their practices? Why not pay Medicaid providers the same to care for Carly as for me? Or, how about this for a novel idea: Why not pay doctors and nurses more to care for Carly? Heresy.

The final group of people who have no insurance are the illegal immigrants, and hell, they don't deserve it, so screw 'em. The free market maniacs imply that this is a no-brainer. They're illegal, for chrissakes, you cannot actually expect that society-- taxpayers-- are responsible to pay their health insurance. NO way! We didn't invite these freeloaders in, and now we have to pay when they have the audacity to get sick? Come on, stop it now.

But hear me out on this. Illegals are here for a reason, and it isn't because they can live more lavishly in the barrios of LA or Chicago, comfortably sipping cervesas while watching the Cubs game on a plasma TV. No. Illegals are here for one thing and one thing only: to work. And for the most part they are underpaid and overworked and live in relative obscurity hoping to avoid the always looming potential deportation while their employers take payroll taxes out of their paycheck for benefits the illegal worker will never realize, or pay them in cash so as to avoid payroll taxes altogether. Every way you slice it, illegals earn their keep, in spades. What happens when a worker gets sick, say has appendicitis, and needs medical care? Well, they don't have insurance, they are afraid of deportation, and they only get paid if they go out into the field every day. Their employer may have a hunch that they are illegal, but heck, the paperwork looks legit and there's a profit margin to maintain here at the blueberry farm. If they get sick, well, they'll know what to do. We all know what they'll do when that appendix flares up: the worker will delay. They will delay because they are afraid and they are vulnerable. Even the most vibrant free marketer would agree that this person does not deserve to die, but nobody knows how to solve this dilemma. I know what not to do: don't put up a hurdle that will disincentivise this person from getting help. What if we had a system that would provide for all comers within our borders because we know that if they are on our soil there's a good chance they are contributing to our economic well-being? How 'bout that premise? Let's not assume these people are all free-loaders, because for the most part, they are not. Sure some engage in criminal activity, but most studies show it's at a much lower rate than natural born citizens. Illegals, for the most part, are the best bargain this economy has: they work hard, ask for nothing and keep quiet. Sure, once our compesano's appendix is yanked and thrown into the waste bucket, he's going back to Honduras or Belize or wherever, but at least he's alive to sneak back another day to pick cabbage or almonds or blueberries for our bountiful tables. Let's hope he makes it back ... we should only be so lucky.

And I won't even go into the weird rationale of expecting US physicians and hospitals to care for illegals while the federal government fails to adequately patrol our borders and looks the other way when business owners knowingly hire illegals and then don't provide insurance to pay for them.

Michael Moore is a showman who can spin a yarn and get your emotions bubbling. But he wouldn't be successful if there was not at least a kernel of truth in what he says. Bowling for Columbine showcased the gun culture that permeates our society; Moore didn't make it up. Fahrenheit 911 put a title to the cynical fearmongering by our administration which has led to an unraveling of our foreign and domestic policies and the American public has now realized six years too late. Likewise, SiCKO gives us a peak at the underbelly of our fatally flawed health care system. The US may have some of the best physicians, nurses, hospitals and technology to help patients, but the bureaucratic and business infrastructure, the system, fails to deliver the product in a fair and economical manner. That's the item for the next blog entry...

"An Oath to the President...?"

A high level advisor in the White House doesn't get it. Andrew Sullivan and Cunning Realist both make mention of this testimony, but I think more should be made of it. Sara Taylor's pseudo-testiony before the Senate not only falls far short of her Constitutional duty, but she has made it apparent that she has no clue what her job was at the White House.



Perhaps I'm drifting into the screech zone, but I don't think so. Taylor has been empowered and paid by the taxpayers of this nation-- we are her boss, not the president-- and she gets up before Congress, our representatives, only to obfuscate and avoid answering the question at hand. She doesn't even know what her oath of office was about!

If the president wants people to take oathes to him, then he needs to pay their salaries and provide their office and benefits. This is done all the time, by the way, in the form of personal counselors or lawyers, and Bush can certainly do that if he wishes. Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers do not fall into that category, however, and such, they have no immunity from answering questions from their ultimate employers-- US.

Send 'em both to jail for contempt of congress.

Whatchyou talkin' about?

Just a little fun with accents from the good ol' US of A. Take this quiz to see what kind of A-murkin' accent you have:

The American Accent Test



Here's my result:

What American accent do you have? (Best version so far) Northern You have a Northern accent. That could either be the Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland/Buffalo accent (easily recognizable) or the Western New England accent that news networks go for.

Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.

Another Shrill Liberal Bush-hater?

No, just Bush's ex-Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, who castigates the administration for playing politics with science. Who would have thunk it?

He was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem-cell research and teen pregnancy prevention, he said.

“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party.”

And the tight rein on the Surgeon general has been worse than ever:

Dr. David Satcher, who served under President Bill Clinton, and Dr. C. Everett Koop, who served under President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush... each faced challenges: Koop fought the Reagan administration over his work on the AIDS epidemic, while Satcher fought the Clinton administration over his support for needle-exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV.

But all three agreed that none faced the sorts of political challenges that confronted Carmona, who finished his four-year term last year. He testified that the very position of surgeon general is in grave danger.

[snip]

"I remember thinking, 'I know why they want me here, they want me to discuss the science; they don't understand the science.' So I had this scientific discussion for about a half an hour, and I was never invited back to the meeting."

Carmona soon realized what he had gotten himself into, however. When he wanted to launch a public education campaign on the science of stem-cell research, he was told he couldn't.

Or just watch the pinko America-hater for yourself:

Profiles in Timing

An example of moral bankruptcy. Explain this timing to the soldiers who are being maimed in Iraq.

Hmmm...?

Sweet Lou's Countdown to His Lee Elia Moment

For the uninitiated, no Chicago sports lore is more pithy than the legendary tirade by Cubs manager Lee Elia in 1983. His team was off to an inauspicious 5-14 start and the fans were already in full negativity despite the early point of the season.

Elia ripped into the day-game only fans--Wrigley did not put lights in for several more years-- as unemployed bums, stating “...the motherf*%kers don't even work, that's why they're out at the f*&king game..." The audio is definitely worth a listen (not work or child safe.) Elia, despite a World Series Championship (not with the Cubs), has yet to live down his wonderful meltdown moment at Wrigley.

Fast forward to 2007 with Lou Piniella at the helm of the most storied losing franchise in the history of professional sports.

Sweet Lou, who has been known to get his Mediterranean blood a-boiling over the years, has lately been showing signs of a mantle plume within the crater. This could be a toxic concoction.

While White Sox fans have little to cheer about these days, we can sit patiently and wait for the Schradenfreude of a beautiful Northside eruption.

Wrigley: where managers go to commit career suicide.

Of Course She Was Covert...

We had to endure all the BS from Bush apologists stating that Valerie Plame was merely a desk jockey for the CIA, driving to work in Virginia with a barely a security clearance. They were not just mistaken-- they were lying.

Most of us knew this was all crap, otherwise US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald would not have pursued the charges of disclosing her status. The only question was who had outed the CIA agent. George W. Bush promised that “if a crime had been committed, that person would not be working in my administration.” Instead of calling the principals in for a heart-to-heart about the national security implications, what did Bush do?

He did what he always does. Bush dithered.

He allowed Libby and Richard Armitage to continue to work on sensitive issues, with top secret clearance, knowing full well laws had been broken. Bush waited for the full course of the legal system to come to bear and --more importantly-- the election of 2004 to pass.

Who knows or cares if Bush will eventually pardon Libby. That would be the least of the abominations committed by this vile administration.

Rise of the Neo- Incompetents!

Richard Cohen from the Washington Post feels he has come up with a new tag for George W. Bush and fleshes it out in Bush the Neoliberal. While Cohen goes on at some length summarizing how Bush is not conservative, he hardly makes the case that Bush's policies have anything to do with liberalism, neo or otherwise.

Cohen recognizes that Bush's disrespect for civil liberties counts against any liberal laurels. He cites issues such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and I would add overseas CIA renditions and warrantless wiretaps, but still Cohen persists with his silly argument about Bush being some type of liberal.

Cohen seems to think that hiring Condi Rice, Harriett Miers, Alberto Gonzales and other minorities and women is the hallmark of liberalism by expanding the diversity quotient of the executive branch. Other Bushophiles I know have also thrown up Rice's status as a de rigeur proof of Bush's open-mindedness. Cohen continues his nauseating surmise:

You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration -- another liberal sentiment -- or his frequent mention of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a "mushy-headed liberal."

Cohen contrasts Bush's “compassion” with the “foreign policy realism” of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush's Dad and Brent Scowcroft. Cohen does admit that while Bush may have been altruistic in purpose in Iraq, his incompetence derailed his policies.

Francis Fukuyama, in his latest book America at the Crossroads, explained the differences between the various foreign policy schools: realism, Wilsonianism, neoconservativism and isolationism. I would like to proffer another school as exemplified by the Bush presidency:

Neo-Incompetentism. This is marked by a dizzying array of pointless policies that do nothing beneficial, are potentially harmful, but give the veneer of responsible government: the unfunded No Child Left Behind and Social Security privatization are prime examples. Other policies such as Homeland Security, while decent ideas at the outset, are mismanaged so adroitly that they serve no purpose other than to give false assurance of safety. The ports are not guarded, plane cargoes are not inspected and the borders are not secure. Another hallmark of Neo-Incompetentism is that government departments that have been functional in the past, such as FEMA and the CIA, are compromised to the point of criminality.

Bush's administration has little resemblance to anything like liberalism or conservativism. He is in a class by himself. Cynics would argue that his tuxedo-wearing base of supporters are the only beneficiaries of such wrong-headedness. Who benefits from oil at $65 per barrel? Whose political hacks replaced the recently fired US Attorneys? What price has the Bush family paid in the war on terror? How many of his kids have volunteered for the war that he has sold as the battle between horrendous evil and all that is holy?

Bush's appointments come from many ethnic groups and do look like America, but the one thing they have in common is their incompetence. Wolfowitz at the World Bank, Miers for the Supreme Court and Gonzales at Justice: all done in order to show disdain for the respective institutions and to reward political cronies. Appointments have nothing to do with finding an effective person for the given position, but rather they are made in order to prove a point, usually a silly point. John Bolton had no chance of accomplishing anything at the UN, but following Neo-Incompetent dogma, he was the right man “so send a message.” Condi Rice is the only Secretary of State in history to intimate that diplomacy is somehow counter-productive.

The crowning achievement of the George W. Bush's Neo-Incompetent administration is, of course, the Iraq war. Conceived on false assumptions, planned with wrong intelligence, prosecuted with faulty strategy, promulgated with shifting missions and ending with an occupation marked by a lack of insight towards the culture... this is the prototype for a Neo-Incompetent policy.

Cohen, in his article, agrees that Bush's legacy will have lasting negative effects:

But it is with Iraq that real and long-term damage has been done. For years to come, his war will be cited to smother any liberal impulse in American foreign policy -- to further discredit John F. Kennedy's vow to "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty." We shall revert to this thing called "realism," which is heartless and cynical, no matter what its other virtues. The debacle of Iraq has cost us -- and others -- plenty in lives. But in the end, it will cost us our soul as well.

Instead of quoting Kennedy and pining about the oncoming “heartless realism”, I think a quote from Abraham Lincoln is more appropriate: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” And if Cohen thinks that Bush is well-meaning and honest, then count him in the former group.

Or perhaps Richard Cohen can learn from Groucho Marx, who said, “The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.”

Now that's a lesson George W. Bush definitely got.

The Not-So Young Earth

Previously, I have written about Dr. David Menton, PhD, who recently came to town to promote his new museum, among other things.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss, PhD, (at left) an outspoken critic of the religionists who are attempting to take over science education in schools, has written a pointed critique of the Creationist Museum. He has also written a succinct PDF that summarizes the science against a 6,000 year-old earth.

Lucy and the Man with Kaleidoscope Eyes

Last Sunday I went to a lecture that defended the creation story of the Bible against evolution.

The evening was held in a beautiful new church with a state-of-the-art audiovisual set up. The speaker was David N. Menton (pictured at left), a PhD cell biologist and Associate Professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri who is a renown critic of evolution and an proponent of creationism and Biblical literalism. Menton is in fact a “young earth” creationist which means that he believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, thus taking the Genesis story literally and tracing the generations forward through the Old Testament and Jesus Christ to the present. He eschews the science of carbon dating and radioisotope dating and believes that the dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve.

The presentation was prefaced with a 20-minute worship service that entailed several Christian songs accompanied by a keyboardist, which brought to mind the Voltaire quote about anything too stupid to be said must be sung, but that's a topic for a different day . The well-groomed congregation was attired in snappy-casual splendor, 99% Caucasian and respectfully quiet. The moderator welcomed visitors to the show and gave the floor over to a local cardiologist who is presumably a member of the church.

The cardiologist, who I know personally as a respected physician, introduced Dr. Menton with glowing praise, but not before relating his personal bias against the assumptions of evolution and his skepticism of certain tenets of the scientific community. The heart doctor reminded the congregation of the years of education that he himself has endured and also of his business and professional success in town, presumably to inject credibility to the proceedings.

Dr. Menton emerged on stage and began his polished Power Point presentation in earnest. His first of two lectures was about Lucy the hominid skeleton (at left), which by the way was named for the Beatles song, found in Africa in 1974 and considered by many paleontologists to be a 3.2 million year-old “missing link” in the evolution of ape-like creatures to modern Homo sapiens. Of course, Menton does not give any credence to such claims and goes on at length with several arguments finding fault with “evolutionist's claims.” He goes on without rebuttal about the technicalities of the shape of Lucy's pelvis, the anatomy of her hands, the carrying angle of her knee and morphology of her feet, and even that Lucy is not a she at all-- implying that assigning female gender was done in order to disarm creationist critics with political correctness. Menton, a non-tenured histologist, contends that a paleoanthropologist named Owen Lovejoy, featured on a PBS Nova documentary, doctored data to fit his theories about the fossil. I guess we'll just have to take David Menton's word for it.

Menton voiced dismay at the media's apparent bias in such matters, especially in their depiction of such lower ape-like lifeforms to have human characteristics. He feels this is done to promote an agenda that these are human-like and thus are done to give greater believability to the claims of evolutionists. He showed museum models and pictures of hominids with supposedly pensive countenances and implied some large conspiracy by the various curators and artisans. My response would be for Dr. Menton to go to the zoo and look at the primates; they have all manner of facial expression from pensive to jocular to even that Dick Cheney 60,000 mile stare.

Menton then tried to further discredit evolution by presenting quotes from various paleontologists that were supposedly indicative of their doubts about the basic tenets of evolution. An example is one quote from David Pilbeam, who was a protege of the venerable Richard Leakey, who said:

If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."

What Menton left out, however, was the complete context, which is more esoteric. The quote was in reference to a discussion about the specific branching of hominoids that occurred previous to the Australopithecine era of Lucy, and was not meant as a broad indictment of evolution in general as Menton implied. Pilbeam said, and I quote at length because the issue is nuanced:

Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orangutan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.... Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago [...]

The debate was about when chimps and humans branched from a common ancestor, not whether ape-like ancestors were present in both hominoids' lineage. As one writer points out: “A discussion follows [by Pilbeam] of the extensive fossil evidence of dryopithecinces and ramapithecines, biochemical estimates of the date of divergence of humans and chimps, a discussion of the rise of bi-pedalism, and David Pilbeam's estimates of the branching times for the various groups of hominoids. That's just chapter three ("Ape-Like Ancestors"). Chapter four ("The Early Hominids") picks up on the near side of the fossil gap referred to in the quote.” To paint Pilbeam as equivocating about evolutionary principles is disingenuous at best.

Menton chose Lucy as his foil for obvious reasons. The skeleton has been the subject of conjecture among paleontologists ever since its discovery 30 years ago. The controversies have surrounded nuances about the findings and their implications about the specifics of hominid evolution. Do scientists disagree on things-- sure. All of science is built on skepticism; hypotheses have to be run through the wringer again and again to see if they hold up. Lucy has presented us with a valuable addition to the admittedly scant hominoid fossil record, but Lucy certainly has not cast asunder the foundation of evolutionary science as Menton would have us believe.

The fossil record of plants and lower animals is replete with examples of gradual adaptation and even instances of frank speciation. Evolutionary principles have been corroborated repeatedly by evaluation of these specimens. The only other explanation for such phenomenon would be that a Supernatural Being laid all these fossils down in the various strata corresponding to different eras just to mess with us big-brained humans or perhaps to test our faith in the His Biblical account. Higher animals and especially apes and humans have the disadvantage of a less complete fossil record, and Lucy remains the creationists' target of choice because they try to make her emblematic for some form of fundamental rift in paleontology. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Menton quoted others throughout the talk, but most of these quotations are inaccessible because they were too old-- taken from publications more than 15 or 20 years old-- or esoteric enough to be hard to find. Menton doubts evolution-- fine, that's his prerogative-- but what flavor of ethical human being would knowingly twist someone else's words to fit his own agenda? This disgusting technique is expected from Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh, and frankly, pisses all over whatever scant credibility Menton could graciously have been granted.

While Menton sounds authoritative, a few things need to be remembered. Firstly, Menton is not a paleontologist, and as far as I know the cardiologist is not a paleontologist either. In fact, no such authority was present in that church to support or rebuke Menton's radical arguments. What little reading I have done on Lucy, which granted comes mostly from popular scientific publications such as Scientific American and National Geographic, contends that many scientists disagree on several conclusions about the fossil, but no credible paleontologist agrees that the fossil is only 6,000 years old and no credible scientist views the fossil as a repudiation of the knowledge we have about evolution.

Secondly, Menton has an agenda. He is here to support his viewpoint that the Bible is literal history and anything that contradicts that worldview is to be discredited at all costs. Since the science of radioisotope geological dating is little understood by lay citizens, Menton's thesis gains credence in such a church setting. The Bible is revered for whatever reason by such a group as the sole Word of God, and if something as difficult to understand as quantum physics disagrees with it, then certainly it's not worth trying to figure out. Here comes a scientist with quasi-respectable credentials who agrees with their irrational worldview. Hallalujah!

Which brings us to the third thing to remember. Dr. Menton sells his half dozen videos, hawks children's media about Adam and Eve living with dinosaurs and has opened a young earth creationist museum near the Ohio-Kentucky border. Over 40 minutes of the 2 ½ hour evening was taken up with discussion of these business ventures and encouraging perusal and purchase. Menton encouraged the purchase of magazine subscriptions and visiting his website. After the formal lectures, the ante room, replete with stacks of DVD's, books and “educational” material, was opened up for the buyers. This evening program had a larger agenda for sure. Where's Matthew 21:12-17 when you need it?

The fact is that David Menton, although appearing in his late 50's or 60's, is not a tenured professor, and I'm sure he would say that he has been outcast from the scientific community because of their prejudice toward his radical views. Fine, that would be a reasonable excuse. Furthermore, Menton's background and entire professional career has been spent as a cell biologist, i.e., looking at cells and tissues under a microscope. Menton is not formally trained in paleontology, fossil records, or even gross anatomy of the pelvis, knee or hand morphology. Menton has as much recognized education in these issues as a gynecologist does in, say, economics-- and we know dangerous a little so-called knowledge can be.

If Menton's arguments are to be taken seriously, then the fossil record as recognized by thousands of apparently intelligent and trained scientists is a complete ruse. Thousands of paleontologists are either so piss-ignorant that they can't tell the difference between a metacarpal and mousetrap, or these same thousands of trained professionals are purposely misleading us all for some reason. And what could be the cynical motivation of these devious scientists? To make money and sell videos? Hmmm?

Menton is an articulate promoter for his cause, whatever it may be. His purpose may be to sell stuff to the unsophisticated masses who are searching not for truth but for some glimmer of hope for their increasingly untenable worldview-- or not. But this is America dammit, so more power to him. If he has found some way to legally detach hard-earned coin from the honest working class, then go for it. Only his conscience should stand in his way.

Menton could have slogged through an academic career, committing years of sweat to primary research, publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals, teaching snot-nosed hungover undergrads, and humping for tenure and the respect of his colleagues. But instead, Menton chose the short road to rock star status. He is a superstar in his circuit, a highly regarded “defender of the faith.” I have no doubt there is some genuine belief in Menton's presentation, but his argument has been terminally corrupted by his clinging to unfathomable assumptions. Even the Catholic Church, as backward as it may be, has accepted the several billion year age of the earth and the basic tenets of natural selection and speciation.

Menton, for all his faults, is correct on one big issue. If one is to believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, then one also needs to discount the physics of rock dating and carbon dating. If Genesis is to be taken word for word, then Menton is correct to blow off these scientific principles. One Christian friend of mine, a professed Biblical literalist, has taken the view that God has created the earth and all the creatures in a week, but, and I quote, “Why can't God make a day that lasts a billion years?” Well then, I answer, wouldn't he have called it “a billion years” then and not “a day” when he sat down to pen his inerrant Word? If we are going to say the Bible is literal, then let's keep it literal. If “a day” is a metaphor for “a billion years”, then why can't the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection be metaphors as well? Admirably, Menton allows none of these niggling conflicts to interfere with his faith.

Overall the night was educational. These guys like Dr. David Menton are not that common so it was an honor to see one in action in his natural habitat. I sat quietly and drank in the ambiance of the evening. The world is a mysterious and frightful place. We all are looking for some beneficial reprieve to the existential death sentence we must endure. To me, Menton seems desperate to cling to a very narrow explanation in order to relieve his angst, and he feels that he has found a firm toe-hold.

Most religionists, and by that I mean theists, have not gone to such extreme lengths to defend their fear-based irrational belief systems as Menton has. Most paper over the contradictions between their faith and the revealed scientific world. Mainline Protestants are the most frustrating to me; they seem to be okay with all manner of watered down interpretation of Biblical myths and the Jesus story. They are like a moving target, never able to be pinned down-- some believe in evolution, others do not-- some see the whole of Christendom as based on a Resurrection that they admit is a metaphor. I would think it would be hard to get dressed on Sunday to attend a worship service for that. Roman Catholics are a little less frustrating because they rely on an infallible Pope to be interpreter of God's intent, so while change can occur in response to science and observation, it comes necessarily slowly and must be filtered inexplicably through the understanding of a senior citizen who wears red slippers. That's craziness I can begin to understand. At least the Catholic faithful can cling to some respectable manner of irrationality as dictated by the alleged peerage of St. Peter.

Menton, however, stands above the others as a stalwart, relishing his unwavering ignorance of scientific argument as it pertains to geology, physics and paleontology. His worldview is to be changed never-- ever. And for that Menton deserves credit. If you are going to embrace irrationality, then go all the way. What the heck, why not?

And go ahead and sell a few DVD's along the way.

Commander Guy Gets His Very Own Quagmire

Keith Olbermann, in tonight's Special Comment, let the Democrats have it for caving to the president's petulance over the funding bill for the Iraq war. Bush vetoed the first bill with timelines, or “artificial timelines”, as GWB would call them. As KO said, King George “held his breath” like a spoiled child until he got a bill that he wanted, and Pelosi and Reid blinked.

Let's take another point of view on this. If I were President Bush, I'd be more nervous now than ever. For a while there it looked like the Dems were going to take the responsibility for losing this war off Bush's shoulders. Congress de-funds the war, we pull the soldiers out of Iraq and Bush writes in his memoirs ("mim-warz") that the surge would have worked if only he had this one last chance... result: legacy salvaged (sort of).

Now, Bush is is in a tight spot. 200 more soldiers killed in the last 60 days, Baghdad is burning, the Iraqi Parliament has taken leave of its senses, the surge is being re-written into yet another new “new” strategy and... what ho!... the Congress has tossed the hot potato back into President's lap again.

This war is not going to end well, we all know that. The President had chosen in January the worst of all possible strategies. The only two reasonable choices were to go heavy or go home. Instead of mobilizing this nation once and for all, enacting a draft and instituting martial law in Iraq, pleading with allies, the UN and NATO to pitch in, Bush chose to dither away his fifth and final opportunity to salvage something from this mess. If he weren't going to “go heavy”, then he should have just pulled the troops out once and for all, and the world would live with the dire consequences, like Cambodia circa 1975. If the Commander won't choose to win, then he should at least choose to get the hell out.

One could argue that the Congress has the moral duty to end the river of US soldiers' blood after 4 years of extreme mismanagement by the Commander Guy. One could call on the Congress to end it now once and for all, you know, be the adult.

But sometimes the responsible parent has to give the kid some slack and allow him to make some mistakes. Like when you were in high school and you got drunk with your buddies and crashed grandpa's car. You have to go to court, plead your case, and then you have to get a job to pay for the bodywork on the old man's Polaris. Let Georgey work his way out of this pickle, Mommy and Daddy aren't going to take the heat for you.

Yes, the losers are the US soldiers who are encumbered to do that extra tour in Iraq. The losers are the US taxpayers who will pay back this war debt with interest, with hard-earned labor and reduced entitlements for the next two or three generations. The losers are the Iraqi people who have almost a million dead already, another million dead once we pull out, and 2 or 3 million refugees gone to distant lands. The loser is the civilized world who will deal with a radicalized Muslim Asia for at least one more generation. But those losses are realized already and another summer won't a big difference make. For the soldiers who will certainly die in the next few months... well, Keith speaks for them.

Olbermann let the Democrats have it with both barrels, and I know he has a valid point. Generalissimo Codpiece is not going to all-of-a-sudden morph into a war commander ala Napoleon-- unless of course you're referring to Leipzig. But the reality is that the Iraq war would continue through the summer regardless of the wording on the current funding bill. The Congress has agreed to pay for it only through the summer, and when September rolls around and the situation is just as bleak, because we all know it will be, then the Congress can step in and call the game. Enough. It's over. Bring home the troops now, George. Collect all your little toys and soldier men and put them away and come inside now to get ready for bed.

The person I'd least like to be tonight is George W. Bush. Today is the day he became the sole owner of the Iraq war, and he paid for it with his soul, and his eternal legacy.

What Would Ike Do?

George W. Bush and his buddies Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have caused a lot of destruction in just 6 short years and ironically one of the victims is the Republican party itself. Conservative Republicans are jumping ship in droves due the lack of principle found in the party.

The latest turncoats are none other than the progeny of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater who are now vocal opponents of Bush's big deficits, international misadventures, lack of conservation measures and the sell-out to the religious wackos.

Eisenhower was elected in 1952 as a backlash against Truman's intervention in Korea, among other things, viewed as misguided liberal policy. Many of the descendants of those Republican conservatives are now realizing that Bush's ideology called “neoconservatism” is really just an inept and dangerous form of this old-time Wilsonian liberalism abroad coupled with fiscal irresponsibility at home.

The Paul Wolfwitz denouement is a case in point. His history has always been one of a pro-Israel Wilsonian who embraced the concept of nation-building and favored an increased military-industrial complex. Make no mistake, this man is not a conservative, at least not in the manner of Bill Buckley, Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater.

Wolfy completely miscalculated the chaos that ensued in post-invasion Iraq and then blundered his way through the ethical mismanagement of his girlfriend at the World Bank. The failure occurred in the execution phases of his tenure on several key issues, but ideologically Wolfy is liberal, even libertine if one considers his unmarried relationship, to the core.

The fact is that true conservatives have been run out of government and the choices now are between incompetent liberals, like Bush and Wolfowitz, who enlarge the government they profess a disdain for, and more capable liberals who respect the institutions enough to at least make them work.

The Democrats certainly have their problems, but these Republicans liberals are tearing this nation apart.

And the progeny of past Republican leaders can see it.

Iraqi Spa Watch, Episode 1: Fat Farm

The corpulent Iraq President Talibani is headed for the US to enter a weight loss program. The obese leader of Kurdish descent was hospitalized a few months ago for fatigue.

Meanwhile six more US soldiers were killed in Baghdad and the search continues for three US soldiers who were kidnapped last week.

As the civil war rages on, let's keep tabs on how many prominent Iraqis come stateside to partake of the wonderful comforts not available in their war-torn hovel. I maintain that a US military pull-out from would not be considered that heart-wrenching for many Iraqi plutocrats who will most certainly be put up with their families in resort settings in Florida and Arizona when and if we decide to leave Iraq.

For many, they may consider it as the sooner the better.

Retire in 9 Simple Steps

Someone, a co-worker, recently asked me if I could sit down with him to talk about personal finance. While I am flattered that anyone would ask my advice, I admonished him to heed that the recommendations of a physician about anything financial may be detrimental to one's economic well-being. While I may enjoy playing with the stock market and studying patterns and valuations, my interest in stock trading is merely that of a hobbyist using extraneous cash. My retirement plan, on the other hand, was developed years ago and set in motion with very little tweaking since.

Having gone through the caveat of my innate ineptitude of all things financial, I agreed to meet with this colleague. Now, as I think about the topic, I'm not sure what type of advice would be appropriate. I give my medical opinions every single day to nearly perfect strangers who seek me out on the referral of friends, family and other health care providers, so why does the prospect of a small conversation about IRA's and life insurance give me pause? If I can meet a person and within 30 minutes review intimate details of their life and health, examine every orifice of their anatomy and then schedule them for a major surgery, then why would I hesitate to give a friend and colleague a bit of wisdom about their retirement that isn't even scheduled for another 25 years?

I have a recurring nightmare that entails a close friend or family member, say a sister, who asks my advice about a cash lump sum to invest. I caution them to be careful, but give statistics about the long term results attained in stock investing. I forward a copy of John Bogle's Mutual Funds or Burton Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall Street, which is ignored. My nutshell recommendation is to dollar-cost average into a diversified stock and bond fund over 12 to 18 months. This nightmare takes place in the fall of 1999 when the market had enjoyed several years of a high trajectory return. My advice is only partially followed, the advisee hears the wonderful news about the stock market, but none of the cautionary language about the high valuation, and drops the entire amount into a tech fund in December 1999.

We know what happens next.

Fast forward to this week. Again, the market has been enjoying a near unprecedented bull run with all major indices at record highs, and more up-days this past 6 weeks than anytime since the 1920's, an ominous comparison in and of itself. Price-earnings ratios might be more realistic compared to 1999, but most market historians and technicians are expecting some type of pull-back or correction one of these days. The fundamentals of the macroeconomic environment show a slowing US economy with an accelerating stock market. What gives? What advice do I give now? Is this 1999 all over again? Or worse, 1929? Where are these would-be investors when the valuations and technicals portend less irrational exuberance?

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon and franchise, has written a book Way of the Weasel in which he covers many topics, but none as succinctly as personal finance. The wisdom is in the simplicity. Do these 9 things, and your personal finance concerns will be history:

1. Make a will

2. Pay off your credit cards

3. Get term life insurance if you have a family to support

4. Fund your 401k to the maximum

5. Fund your IRA to the maximum

6. Buy a house if you want to live in a house and can afford it

7. Put six months worth of expenses in a money-market account

8. Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement

9. If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues), hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio

Simple if not easy. Ignore financial pundits, market mavens and get-rich quick schemes. Sometimes the best advice comes from the strangest sources, but that doesn't detract from it's value.

Getting rich is just as savory if attained slowly, and with a few Dilbert jokes to brighten the journey. This is where the conversation begins.

Daddy Cancels the Kids' Vacation

Today, newspapers report that V.P. Cheney went to Iraq on a surprise visit to warn the Prime Minister and the Parliament that “now it's game time.” Much like the authoritarian father figure that he is, Cheney went up to the bedroom of the petulant fighting sons to tell them to “knock it off.” Seemingly, this was done only after the desperate mother, played by Congress, has threatened to walk out on this dysfunctionally violent household and take the checkbook and credit card with her.

Will Johnny Shi'a and Bobby Sunni listen to their Dad? And if Cheney's last-ditch strategy works, then it would beg the question of why he didn't go over there to knock their heads together 3300 US soldiers' lives ago.

The kids in the Iraqi Parliament have incredulously announced that they are taking a 2 month vacation starting immediately, and this certainly was part of the impetus for Cheney's visit. They still do not have a oil-sharing arrangement in Iraq and the US military is in the midst of a sweep through Baghdad and the US Congress has already passed a resolution to put a time-table on the war. Only George Bush's veto of the restrictive funding bill stood in the way of the US troops coming home within 18 months. One wonders what the f*%k the Iraqi Parliament could have been thinking.

My only thought is that the members of the Iraqi Parliament must not feel the desperation that I would think they should have. Most likely, their lives would improve if Iraq imploded. I cannot help but think that they feel the US would provide asylum for them and their families, they could live in Sarasota instead of the Green Zone, write a book, do some speeches and bemoan the plight of “their people” at the hands of the terrorists. Losing Iraq would hardly be the end of the line for the Parliamentarians. Unlike Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Washington, the Iraqi leaders are confident that they are not going to be hanging from the highest tree if this war fails.

The Costanza Administration

Michael Fullilove has written a piece in the Financial Times that pretty much sums up the modus operandi of the current administration. George Costanza, the ne'er do well friend of Jerry in the Seinfeld series, had a brainstorm one episode to “do the opposite” of every one of his impulses. He reasoned that since he has been so unsuccessful with women, his career and his relationships, that out of desperation, what would it hurt to be as counter-intuitive as possible?

Like Costanza, George W. Bush seems to be “doing the opposite”, and like Costanza, such a strategy works for a while, but then inevitably ends in disaster. Unlike Costanza, however, Bush's disaster is not just personal, but rather is lived upon our entire nation and most of the world. Fullilove writes:

...in its geopolitical incarnation, adherents to the Costanza doctrine cast aside many of the fundamental tenets they learnt at staff college or graduate school. Let me name a few.

First, military and diplomatic resources are finite and should be directed towards your greatest priority. An example of the opposite approach would be for a country that has been attacked by a non-state terrorist group to retaliate by removing a state regime that had nothing to do with the attack.

Second, take care not to weaken your intimidatory powers through poor military performance. Aim for short, sharp victories (such as that in the 1991 Gulf war) that get your adversaries worrying about the extent of US power. The opposite would be to launch a war of choice involving the drawn-out occupation of an Arab country – the kind of thing that gets your allies worrying about the limits of US power.

Third, you get by with help from friends. Although the powerful are sometimes tempted to go it alone, international support helps determine the perceived legitimacy of an action, which affects its risk and costs. Building this support requires discussion and compromise. The opposite would be to spurn real negotiations, slough off your allies, bin multilateral agreements you do not like and declare that you are not bound by the rules that govern everyone else.

Fourth, state-building is hard. Few of the international efforts at state-building since the cold war’s end have succeeded. Luckily there are numberless reports identifying lessons learnt. The alternative would be to do the opposite of what those reports recommend, for example by deploying insufficient troops and dismantling any extant national institutions such as the army.

Fifth, democracy is a blessing that requires patient nurturing. The opposite approach would be to seek to impose democracy by force of arms on a population traumatised by decades of vicious and totalitarian rule.

Sixth, politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If two dangerous states are struggling for dominance of a strategic region, maintaining a balance between them may be the least worst option. The opposite would be to emasculate one of them, thereby greatly increasing the relative power of the other.

Finally, historians often cite the need for prudence in international relations, quoting the physician’s dictum: “First, do no harm.” The opposite would be: “Don’t think too much, just chance your arm and see what happens!”

I part with Fullilove's opinion, however, when he states that the Costanza Doctrine is based on “hope.” I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the “Opposite” Theory is based on laziness, ineptitude and lack of introspection; and his decisions are made out of desperation. Like Costanza, Bush has lived a life of failure and lacks the proper self-realization to correct his deficiencies.

“...and you want to be my latex salesman.”

McCain's Inharmonious Song Stylings

That sound you hear is the McCain Straight Talk Express going “boom.”

One of the more poignant bloggers today is The Cunning Realist. Aside from his less than humble name, he/she has an uncanny way of finding the appropriate analogy to a current event. The latest flap involving Senator McCain's joke about bombing Iran left me reticent to jump on the left-leaning bandwagon of castigation. Was is merely an off-hand remark-- a joke-- served up as red meat for the faithful at a campaign event? Perhaps.

But TCR put a nice frame on it:

Scenario: China, the world's preeminent superpower, invades and occupies Canada on a false pretense and lets it descend into civil war. The U.S., a developing nation without nuclear weapons, watches from next door. Then a senior Chinese official who could soon be the country's next president starts singing songs about "bombing the U.S." at political rallies. He gets laughs and applause.

As an American, would you or would you not demand that Washington develop the ultimate deterrent against that madness?

There may have been a time when the United States had some moral authority in the world, and we can debate as to when such authority began to wane: our imperial conquests during the Spanish-American War, the displacement of millions of Palestinians in 1948, our overthrow of various popular leaders in 1953 Iran, 1960's Central America and Vietnam, our attempted coup in 1961 Cuba, or our continued misadventures in nation-building.

Regardless, from any perspective outside of our own jingoist self-aggrandizement, the current US foreign policy is a disaster of epic proportion. This may be how empires end. I'm not a historian, but I can imagine some Roman Senator in 300 or 400 CE joking about the perceived ineptitude of the barbarian Visigoths to the loud guffaws of his civilized constituents. Administration apologists, of which McCain is one, are quick to show much feigned concern for how dissent will play into our enemies' hands. How do jokes about pointless aggression and murder play?

John McCain's past history puts him clearly in the category of hero. He has my respect for his past service to our country, his unquestioned loyalty and bravery so many years ago. But a President McCain? I think not.

ACE !!!!

White Sox left-hander Mark Buehrle threw a no-hitter tonight against the Texas Rangers as fans cheered on the cold Southside. The only base runner for the Rangers was Sammy Sosa who was walked and then was promptly picked off by the Sox southpaw.

Sox hitting, moribund thus far this season, finally came through with Jim Thome hitting two solo home runs and Jermaine Dye adding a grand slam. Great fielding saved the day with no errors and a couple close calls picked up by Juan Uribe at shortstop and Joe Crede at third base.

The Rangers, once owned by George W. Bush, looked as hapless tonight as the president has these past few years, and were unable to mount any type of offensive surge against the Sox hurler. This was the first no-hitter for a White Sox pitcher since Wilson Alvarez threw an ace in 1991.

Sadrists Reload as Virginia Mourns

For anyone who still thinks that the Iraq war is going swimmingly, yesterday we learned that Moqtada al Sadr (pictured at right, in poster) has effectively pulled out of the government. The militia leader, who reportedly has a 60,000 man armed force, ordered his six of the 38 Parliament representatives to leave and go home.

I realize that this news may have been lost in the horror at Virginia Tech, but for the average Iraqi, disasters like VT's occur daily in every province. Now, with the Sadrist secession, we have ensured that more violence will be directed at US forces and anyone who cooperates with us. Just yesterday, 51 Iraqis were killed or found dead, and for a country one-tenth the size of the US, that would be comparable to over 500 in the US. Where's the outrage?

As terrible as the killings at Virginia Tech are, Americans are confident that they are an aberration which will be corrected with awareness and added security. The likelihood of this incident spinning into a regional war is zero. In Iraq, such violence has become a way of life, and is increasing with no end in sight. At some point, a tipping point is reached with such violence. The factions avenge old grudges, demagogues appeal to the basest instincts, armies are created to grab land and resources, civilians are killed in spite and the educated middle class leaves. And Bush sends a few more soldiers to stoke the flames.

I don't know the answers for Iraq. But I also know that Bush doesn't either. Every day that goes by, we are dug in even deeper and every decision made the last five years has been the wrong one. Every single one. So I'm pretty confident that the next one will be wrong, too.

We mourn our dead in Virginia (at left) and try to gain some insight as to how this could happen so we can prevent another such incident.

In Iraq, they are still in the midst of an escalating firefight and our leaders have no clue.