Bush's Resignation Speech

[deevergote]

Back to the "breathtaking leader" concept...


The reason why we have not had, and probably will never have, a breathtaking leader is because of the media. Back in the days of the charismatic leaders, the truly breathtaking stuff of legend, the media coverage was limited. Newspapers, word of mouth... even newsreels and radio. Today, we have cable/satellite TV in most homes. Internet access is available in the poorest of neighborhoods. Scandal rags are abundant. People are too easily informed, and too often misinformed, by the media.
Leaders are humanized, rather than deified. The flaws of our leaders become the stuff of ratings. People would rather see our leaders fall from grace, than worship them for being supreme examples of human beings.
I'm sure most of our most revered leaders had MANY skeletons in their closets. JFK was a lecherous man-whore. The media frenzy started in his time, but it wasn't quite as bad as it is now... his untimely death made him out to be more of a legend than he really would've been had he stayed alive. Hell, the man may very well have been our worst president ever! Lincoln and Washington were regarded as wise, strong, nearly perfect men. Chances are, both of them have done things in their past that would cause them to disappear out of shame in today's world. I've even read some fairly convincing evidence that Ben Franklin (not a President, I know... but still a noteworthy political figure, and someone I hold in high regard) had an unhealthy fondness for children!


Now, that doesn't mean that I think W is a great man, or a great leader. I still believe he's far from great. However, he's average. He's probably the best example of the average American we've had in office in a very long time (Clinton was close... W is closer). He's made his screwups, but most of those are plastered on the internet and on posters. Most of those have to do with the fact that his public speaking skills are pathetic. Many of the things that people give him credit for "destroying" were the result of other, usually joint, decisions in the other areas of government... things that we, as the voting public, would probably had some control over had we paid attention. We love to bitch after the fact... but these bills are public record as they are being discussed. We have the option to protest if we don't agree. Doesn't mean we'll win, but we have the option to at least try.
Many of the things, such as the economy, have nothing to do with W. As owequitit said, the economy was already heading down when W was taking office. However, Clinton had nothing to do with it either! More responsible for the economy: Bill Gates. Not directly... but the internet and the infotech boom in the 90s opened up a whole new realm for business. Jobs opened up, and the elite computer professionals cashed in. People started going to school for computer related stuff. Suddenly, the market stabilized. Rather than being this cool new thing, the internet and all that is related became part of everyday life. No longer could you make a fortune selling ANYTHING online, because people learned that they could buy GOOD things online... the novelty of getting things from the internet faded. So the market stabilized... and we had a workforce saturated with people trained in the computer field. Suddenly, companies had more than enough qualified people to choose from... and they didn't have to pay some 22 year old kid straight out of college $75,000 a year. They could pick and choose from dozens of hungry, qualified applicants... and $22,000 a year would get the best of them. Now we have all these educated, unemployed people doing jobs that they never expected to be doing... for less than they expected to make. Suddenly, we're in a slump. Is the economy really that bad? No... but we were fat and happy in the late 90s, and we thought it would stay that way!

[owequitit]

Back to the "breathtaking leader" concept...


The reason why we have not had, and probably will never have, a breathtaking leader is because of the media. Back in the days of the charismatic leaders, the truly breathtaking stuff of legend, the media coverage was limited. Newspapers, word of mouth... even newsreels and radio. Today, we have cable/satellite TV in most homes. Internet access is available in the poorest of neighborhoods. Scandal rags are abundant. People are too easily informed, and too often misinformed, by the media.
Leaders are humanized, rather than deified. The flaws of our leaders become the stuff of ratings. People would rather see our leaders fall from grace, than worship them for being supreme examples of human beings.
I'm sure most of our most revered leaders had MANY skeletons in their closets. JFK was a lecherous man-whore. The media frenzy started in his time, but it wasn't quite as bad as it is now... his untimely death made him out to be more of a legend than he really would've been had he stayed alive. Hell, the man may very well have been our worst president ever! Lincoln and Washington were regarded as wise, strong, nearly perfect men. Chances are, both of them have done things in their past that would cause them to disappear out of shame in today's world. I've even read some fairly convincing evidence that Ben Franklin (not a President, I know... but still a noteworthy political figure, and someone I hold in high regard) had an unhealthy fondness for children!


Now, that doesn't mean that I think W is a great man, or a great leader. I still believe he's far from great. However, he's average. He's probably the best example of the average American we've had in office in a very long time (Clinton was close... W is closer). He's made his screwups, but most of those are plastered on the internet and on posters. Most of those have to do with the fact that his public speaking skills are pathetic. Many of the things that people give him credit for "destroying" were the result of other, usually joint, decisions in the other areas of government... things that we, as the voting public, would probably had some control over had we paid attention. We love to bitch after the fact... but these bills are public record as they are being discussed. We have the option to protest if we don't agree. Doesn't mean we'll win, but we have the option to at least try.
Many of the things, such as the economy, have nothing to do with W. As owequitit said, the economy was already heading down when W was taking office. However, Clinton had nothing to do with it either! More responsible for the economy: Bill Gates. Not directly... but the internet and the infotech boom in the 90s opened up a whole new realm for business. Jobs opened up, and the elite computer professionals cashed in. People started going to school for computer related stuff. Suddenly, the market stabilized. Rather than being this cool new thing, the internet and all that is related became part of everyday life. No longer could you make a fortune selling ANYTHING online, because people learned that they could buy GOOD things online... the novelty of getting things from the internet faded. So the market stabilized... and we had a workforce saturated with people trained in the computer field. Suddenly, companies had more than enough qualified people to choose from... and they didn't have to pay some 22 year old kid straight out of college $75,000 a year. They could pick and choose from dozens of hungry, qualified applicants... and $22,000 a year would get the best of them. Now we have all these educated, unemployed people doing jobs that they never expected to be doing... for less than they expected to make. Suddenly, we're in a slump. Is the economy really that bad? No... but we were fat and happy in the late 90s, and we thought it would stay that way!

All very true. And the fact is that no human is without fault, therefore there will never be a faultless leader, and therefore, there will ALWAYS be someone for the media to blow out of proportion as a bad guy. With respect to Congress vs President, a quick read of the Constitution will clearly show who has the power in this country, but most people don't want to deal with the fact that they can't pin it all on one person.

And you are also correct about the Tech Boom. Like any great new technology, it allowed us to increase productivity in ways we had never seen before. Stuff that used to take months and teams of people, could now be done by 1 person on a computer in a couple of hours. This allowed us to apply those previously used resources elsewhere, which allowed exponential economic growth throughout the economy. Eventually, the technology, and thus productivity, permeated every facet of life, and the productivity gains got smaller and smaller and smaller. The EXACT same thing happened during the industrial revolution. If you look at the average economic condition of the average American in 1890, and the average economic condition of the average American today, the long term result is unquestionable. Hell, the people living below the poverty line today, have more stuff than the average family did in the 1950's. It would be unrealistic to think that the kind of growth we saw during the 80's and 90's would continue indefinitely. But alas, most of the people on this board, including me, never lived outside of that time, so it is hard to grasp. I was born early enough to actually see the technology take hold though, so it is readily apparent to me. I used to type on a manual typewriter, and then we got a computer. I appreciated the difference.

After the Industrial revolution, the economy eventually leveled out, just as ours is now.

[f22a4bandit]

Is an invisible enemy any less of a detriment to your life? Especially when they could be anywhere you might be, with the singular goal to kill you?

Is that hazardous to your health?

Anybody who thought the "war" would be over when Saddam was removed was stupid.

Actually, we should have just walked out. People would be not so happy, had we done that.

Also, there was support for the war when it started. The problem is that 99% of Americans have no concept of committment. It is seen in the divorce rate, the theft rate, the crime rate, and in many other social indicators. That is why the comment about 'Survivor' in the original post was so fitting. People honestly expect this stuff to be solved in one season of a TV show. Hell, it started as soon as the first shots were fired. What, like they were honestly going to just open their doors and let us in?

The truth of the matter is that we HAVE made progress, and the VAST majority of the country is better off than they were. There is a contingent group of people that sees the opportunity to seize power, because it will suit them, and allow them to push their agenda onto the masses. It will be no better than Saddam, but it will be their way, so they will be happy. And you know what? They are going to beat us. Simply because they are willing to do what it takes and we are not. Watch 'The Patriot' to see an example of what I am talking about.

And we as a country are outraged about 4,000 people dying in 4, almost 5 years. Where is the public outcry against drunk drivers? More than 40,000 people died last year alone, in car accidents. Alchohol was involved in 51% of fatal accidents. That is over 21,000 people killed. IN ONE YEAR. Where is the outrage? Where is the call to arms? Why must so many innocent people die each year? Oh God the horror! Who died needlessly, and who died for a cause? Where is the media attention? Why aren't you crying for help and equality and solutions?

It isn't sensational enough, and it might actually affect YOU. You can't just sit in a chair and piss and moan if they take away YOUR rights can you?

The Democrats and the Republicans are nothing more than Political Pharmacists. There was a whole slew of people who made it big off of this in the 1900's. They made fortunes by selling placebos for every ailment known to man. Visit Fullford Mansion on the St Lawrence River for an idea of how they succeeded.

The Democrats are selling little pink pills to pale people. The Republicans are selling little pale pills to pink people. Neither one does a damn thing, but they both result in those parties furthering their agenda.

I wasn't trying to argue that we should have left Iraq once Saddam was removed. The "conventional" war was over once Saddam was removed, but not the entire war. I should have stated the conventional war and not just the war in general. A war against terror doesn't just end after removing a certain person in power. Of course, a war against terror never really ends either.

[deevergote]

The war against terror is so aimless that it's nearly pointless. We'd be better off simply watching our own shores and fending off any attacks (as well as being prepared for any internal issues...)

The only good reason to be in Iraq, and probably our reason for being there, is to have a military presence in the Middle East. We have troops in Afghanistan, and troops in Iraq. We have troops on both sides of the area that the terrorists call home. That makes it very difficult for any sort of large-scale terrorist movement. Rebuilding Iraq probably isn't a major concern. In fact, stalling it and keeping our presence there as long as possible is probably the intention. As long as we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're MUCH closer to Iran... and even Korea... than we would be if we had all our troops back home. Taking out Saddam, as righteous as we made it sound... was probably nothing more than a cover to gain a foothold in that part of the world. It's very possible that we're the bad guys in that situation... we tore apart a country so we could occupy it and use it as a base. hi-ho Silver!

[92cb7accord]

Can't we all just get along?

[owequitit]

I wasn't trying to argue that we should have left Iraq once Saddam was removed. The "conventional" war was over once Saddam was removed, but not the entire war. I should have stated the conventional war and not just the war in general. A war against terror doesn't just end after removing a certain person in power. Of course, a war against terror never really ends either.

It wasn't pointed directly at you per se. I was merely using your post as a jumping off point.

[owequitit]

Back to the "breathtaking leader" concept...


The reason why we have not had, and probably will never have, a breathtaking leader is because of the media. Back in the days of the charismatic leaders, the truly breathtaking stuff of legend, the media coverage was limited. Newspapers, word of mouth... even newsreels and radio. Today, we have cable/satellite TV in most homes. Internet access is available in the poorest of neighborhoods. Scandal rags are abundant. People are too easily informed, and too often misinformed, by the media.
Leaders are humanized, rather than deified. The flaws of our leaders become the stuff of ratings. People would rather see our leaders fall from grace, than worship them for being supreme examples of human beings.
I'm sure most of our most revered leaders had MANY skeletons in their closets. JFK was a lecherous man-whore. The media frenzy started in his time, but it wasn't quite as bad as it is now... his untimely death made him out to be more of a legend than he really would've been had he stayed alive. Hell, the man may very well have been our worst president ever! Lincoln and Washington were regarded as wise, strong, nearly perfect men. Chances are, both of them have done things in their past that would cause them to disappear out of shame in today's world. I've even read some fairly convincing evidence that Ben Franklin (not a President, I know... but still a noteworthy political figure, and someone I hold in high regard) had an unhealthy fondness for children!


Now, that doesn't mean that I think W is a great man, or a great leader. I still believe he's far from great. However, he's average. He's probably the best example of the average American we've had in office in a very long time (Clinton was close... W is closer). He's made his screwups, but most of those are plastered on the internet and on posters. Most of those have to do with the fact that his public speaking skills are pathetic. Many of the things that people give him credit for "destroying" were the result of other, usually joint, decisions in the other areas of government... things that we, as the voting public, would probably had some control over had we paid attention. We love to bitch after the fact... but these bills are public record as they are being discussed. We have the option to protest if we don't agree. Doesn't mean we'll win, but we have the option to at least try.
Many of the things, such as the economy, have nothing to do with W. As owequitit said, the economy was already heading down when W was taking office. However, Clinton had nothing to do with it either! More responsible for the economy: Bill Gates. Not directly... but the internet and the infotech boom in the 90s opened up a whole new realm for business. Jobs opened up, and the elite computer professionals cashed in. People started going to school for computer related stuff. Suddenly, the market stabilized. Rather than being this cool new thing, the internet and all that is related became part of everyday life. No longer could you make a fortune selling ANYTHING online, because people learned that they could buy GOOD things online... the novelty of getting things from the internet faded. So the market stabilized... and we had a workforce saturated with people trained in the computer field. Suddenly, companies had more than enough qualified people to choose from... and they didn't have to pay some 22 year old kid straight out of college $75,000 a year. They could pick and choose from dozens of hungry, qualified applicants... and $22,000 a year would get the best of them. Now we have all these educated, unemployed people doing jobs that they never expected to be doing... for less than they expected to make. Suddenly, we're in a slump. Is the economy really that bad? No... but we were fat and happy in the late 90s, and we thought it would stay that way!

I disagree here. While Iraq is questionable, it WAS based on good intelligence. According to someone on here, a few posts back, they have actually found WMD stuff, but it wasn't full grade, and it isn't covered in the news, because of course, that would hinder the media's agenda.

Also, I would MUCH rather see the conflict outside of our borders, as opposed to inside. The reason is simple. If we wait for them to try and infiltrate our borders, the fighting is going to occur within them. How do you know that won't be a shopping mall where your mom is looking at smelly things in Bath and Body works?

You don't. You don't need to look much further than Israel if you want to see the consequences of a reactionary policy. We thought our borders were adequately protected in the first place. Clearly they weren't, and not only weren't they, but we didn't have the facilities to put a bunch of small pieces together, to formulate the complex puzzle. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And the best defense is a good offense. If you are in a position where you are not the one defending yourself, then you are in a better position. Initiative is everthing. Usually, if you are defensive, you have already lost it.

We have better facilities to catch that sort of stuff now, but I would rather know that we are starting to prevent it as early as possible, as opposed to waiting until the last second. Call me crazy, but at the last second you have no time to react if everthing doesn't work out perfectly. It seems cold and hard, but it is absolutely true. We aren't playing Suzie Homemaker here. We are playing Someone's Gonna Die. I don't want it to be anyone I care about. If that means taking it to them, then so be it. They have started it.

In fact, this all began over an EGO bruise that our small penis equipped friend Osama received, during GWI. His small penis is his problem. I don't want to make it mine.

Here is a good hard question to ask yourselves: You go to dinner in a nice cafe with a new girlfriend/wife. You are enjoying your dinner, when suddenly everything blows up. Do you want to have to live like that?

P.S. Our government has stopped quite a bit of stuff outside of our borders, trying to get in. They just don't talk about it, because that would be as silly as tipping your hand in Poker.

Also, what would have happened if those non-WMD had landed in the wrong hands? Al Qaida was already setup in Iraq. They will use anything they can get their hands on.

Ultimately, No, the "War on Terror" will never end. But the more we inhibit their ability to do business, the more less effective they will become. Our biggest problem is going to be that no matter what happens, we as a country do not have the wherewithal to strike back in a manner that will convince them to quit. They already think we are weak, and they already know their strategy is working. Osama, and his cohorts might have small penis's but they aren't dumb. They are using our known media against us.

[deevergote]

Scott, in your disagreement, you agreed with me


I totally think that maintaining a military presence in the Middle East is for the best. I hate the fact that we're doing it under the pretense of actively fighting a war, or restructuring a country that we "saved". We're over there, under the guise of being do-gooders... but we're really being vigilant for terrorist activity. If they mobilize, we're hoping to catch them on their own turf and take them out before the get to American soil.

We can't take too much initiative, simply because we have no clear-cut target. Osama, sure... but where is he? Is he even still alive? I'm SURE he's not the ONLY one behind everything. That would be idiotic to put all the power to one man... We may view the terrorists as savage, even insane... but they are not stupid.


Like in Vietnam, our enemy has the ability to hide... and appear to attack anywhere. The only bad thing is that it is no longer simply on the border of Cambodia... but now, in the whole world. We could very well have well hidden sects in our own country now, as we did when 9/11 occurred... just waiting to be mobilized. The terrorists have been Middle Eastern in the past... but there is nothing saying that they HAVE to be. A blond-haired, blue-eyed man of German descent may very well be a fanatic, willing to blow himself up for his cause. Not as likely, fortunately... but not impossible.
We can't watch every Muslim. We can't assume they're all terrorists, because that would make us as bad (or worse) than the terrorists themselves.
As in Vietnam, we're stuck. We can't attack an enemy we can't see. We can't cross the border (then, Cambodia... now, the generalization of all Muslims) to get them. We can only wait, and strike when we know we're attacking the enemy. Sadly, with Vietnam as a precedent... we're going to suffer heavy losses, and we may still lose in the end.

We ARE following a bit of a reactionary policy... mainly because we don't know where the enemy is. However, we took our watch to their borders, rather than watching our own.

[owequitit]

Scott, in your disagreement, you agreed with me


I totally think that maintaining a military presence in the Middle East is for the best. I hate the fact that we're doing it under the pretense of actively fighting a war, or restructuring a country that we "saved". We're over there, under the guise of being do-gooders... but we're really being vigilant for terrorist activity. If they mobilize, we're hoping to catch them on their own turf and take them out before the get to American soil.

We can't take too much initiative, simply because we have no clear-cut target. Osama, sure... but where is he? Is he even still alive? I'm SURE he's not the ONLY one behind everything. That would be idiotic to put all the power to one man... We may view the terrorists as savage, even insane... but they are not stupid.


Like in Vietnam, our enemy has the ability to hide... and appear to attack anywhere. The only bad thing is that it is no longer simply on the border of Cambodia... but now, in the whole world. We could very well have well hidden sects in our own country now, as we did when 9/11 occurred... just waiting to be mobilized. The terrorists have been Middle Eastern in the past... but there is nothing saying that they HAVE to be. A blond-haired, blue-eyed man of German descent may very well be a fanatic, willing to blow himself up for his cause. Not as likely, fortunately... but not impossible.
We can't watch every Muslim. We can't assume they're all terrorists, because that would make us as bad (or worse) than the terrorists themselves.
As in Vietnam, we're stuck. We can't attack an enemy we can't see. We can't cross the border (then, Cambodia... now, the generalization of all Muslims) to get them. We can only wait, and strike when we know we're attacking the enemy. Sadly, with Vietnam as a precedent... we're going to suffer heavy losses, and we may still lose in the end.

We ARE following a bit of a reactionary policy... mainly because we don't know where the enemy is. However, we took our watch to their borders, rather than watching our own.

To a degree, yes I did. I disagree about waiting for them to get to our borders.

Also, I think we know more about the enemy than we (the public) think we (the governmet) do. Probably another lesson learned in Vietnam. They still have to physically exist. In most cases, with Vietnam, it wasn't the enemies ability to hide that made them ultimately sucessful, it was their ability to use our rules of engagement. There is a big difference. We knew they were moving the trail, and we knew where, and we knew where they were sleeping, but we couldn't do a damn thing about it because the troops weren't allowed to.

Vietnam was much more stupid from an execution standpoint, than from an ability standpoint. Our military knows how to find and kill people. But usually the monkeys holding the purse strings do us in.

As far as out effectiveness in finding the key players, and taking them out, look no further than the FBI's most wanted list, just after 9-11, as compared to today. Considering that most of those people are relatively high level (more protected), it is pretty glaringly obvious that we are doing SOMETHING. I don't know if we found Osama or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't mention it if we did. It would do very little for public support, because the media would overshadow it with crap, and it would serve a huge purpose on the other side, because he would be a Martyr.

Also, watching the military channel, I found it surprising to see how easy it can be to get info out of people over there. Especially in Afghanistan where a blanket and food is far more important than any political loyalty. Gotta love Maslow!

Anyway, I don't want to see it spill into our borders, because ultimately, having to worry about getting blown up in the mall, or eating dinner is not freedom.

[Tnwagn]

Higher resolution is great for these threads where owe and deeve get into their philosophical discussions.

As for the 'war' I think it has reached the point were, like deeve said, it is hard to fight what you don't know is coming.

It's like trying to stop weeds from growing in your lawn. When they pop up, you try and get rid of them before they get out of hand. The only way to stop them comletely is to bombard the grass with chemicals that destroy almost everything (which isn't really a choice when it comes to the war )

[f22a4bandit]

It wasn't pointed directly at you per se. I was merely using your post as a jumping off point.

Gotcha

[deevergote]

To a degree, yes I did. I disagree about waiting for them to get to our borders.

Oh yeah, I did say that... I talked myself out of that mindset by the end of that post!

I agree that it's better to keep it over there. However, I think we may be neglecting our own country a bit. They are here. I'm sure the last of them didn't die on 9/11.

This whole war is just messed up. The enemy have no uniforms. No single country to call home. No tanks. No planes. They have screaming fanatics with outdated weapons and sticks of dynamite... and there's not a damn thing we can do about it until one of them comes running at us screaming... or worse, running at innocent civilians.

[owequitit]

Oh yeah, I did say that... I talked myself out of that mindset by the end of that post!

I agree that it's better to keep it over there. However, I think we may be neglecting our own country a bit. They are here. I'm sure the last of them didn't die on 9/11.

This whole war is just messed up. The enemy have no uniforms. No single country to call home. No tanks. No planes. They have screaming fanatics with outdated weapons and sticks of dynamite... and there's not a damn thing we can do about it until one of them comes running at us screaming... or worse, running at innocent civilians.

That is what makes this our hardest fight yet, but also the most critical.

And yes, they are living among us, however, our intelligence community is not neglecting us. The majority of military action is overseas. A large percentage of the more clandestine, counter terrorist activity is here. How do you suppose they caught the guy with a bomb in his shoe, and the guy who had explosives seperated into seperate harmless liquids (which is the reason for all of the liquids restrictions on flights)? They are watching.

I am not so sure I agree with the wiretapping, but according to some people close to the program, they don't just tap you just because. They don't have the resources for it. They tap if they have suspicion, and go from there. However, my concern is that there is a fine line between the two. At this point in time though, even many of the Democratic Senators have stated that it isn't really Unconstitutional (according to their interpretation, not the Supreme Court's), as they work very hard to not violate any Civil rights. It has been effective, but it is controversial to say the least.

[deevergote]

Yeah, there's definitely a fine line between close surveillance and a violation of privacy... and then, big brother.

I'm the owner of a small, but internationally populated web forum. I have voiced my opinion on George Bush repeatedly. You have to wonder if I'm being monitored! If I am being monitored, is that a violation of privacy? Or could they see me as a threat, because I have influence over a small group of people spread throughout the world? I could be planning an uprising! Would my status be enough to want to keep an eye on me? Would it be a violation of my rights if they did?



Ultimately, the impact of all of this has affected my daily life minimally. If the war is at all responsible for the current price of gas (which is going down drastically in my part... $2.62 for premium today!) then I feel it. If not, that's about it. The rest is all stories on the news, and distant friends of friends serving over there now. And, of course, the few cb7tuner members that have been deployed. Directly, though... Not much in my life has changed. It strikes me as odd how people can get so worked up over things that really have little to do with them!

[owequitit]

Yeah, there's definitely a fine line between close surveillance and a violation of privacy... and then, big brother.

I'm the owner of a small, but internationally populated web forum. I have voiced my opinion on George Bush repeatedly. You have to wonder if I'm being monitored! If I am being monitored, is that a violation of privacy? Or could they see me as a threat, because I have influence over a small group of people spread throughout the world? I could be planning an uprising! Would my status be enough to want to keep an eye on me? Would it be a violation of my rights if they did?



Ultimately, the impact of all of this has affected my daily life minimally. If the war is at all responsible for the current price of gas (which is going down drastically in my part... $2.62 for premium today!) then I feel it. If not, that's about it. The rest is all stories on the news, and distant friends of friends serving over there now. And, of course, the few cb7tuner members that have been deployed. Directly, though... Not much in my life has changed. It strikes me as odd how people can get so worked up over things that really have little to do with them!

They have been monitoring phone calls for years. The station in New Mexico is setup to catch any number of words, and strings of words, and then listen for a period of time, to see if the conversation is threatening. I think the fact this is being done more publicly (i.e. the People know about it), probably means that it is less insidious. Ultimately, if they wanted to violate civil rights, and not let anyone know about it, they would. It isn't like the CIA or the NSA wouldn't know how to pull it off.

As far as gas prices go, it was mostly a supply issue. People neglect the fact that when Katrina ran aground, it wiped out the largest oil refining region in the country. We lost a bunch of major refineries. A refinery isn't a front yard, or even a house. They don't just get repaired overnight. In order to try and keep capacity up, they took all of the refineries that were still operable, and made them produce absolutely as much as they could. This in turn didn't allow them to down sections of these refineries for maintenance, which is what led to the raft of refinery break downs that were in the news awhile ago.

The Katrina refineries have started to come back on line, and the other refineries have finally been able to go down for the routine maintenance that they need. Gas prices should trend down over the rest of the year.

This is a good example of the Survivor comment again. The average American is so uninformed, disillusioned, and obtusely self absorbed, that they really can't fathom that not all problems can be solved in one season. As nice as it would be, life isn't the Brady Bunch. We can't fit the problem, and the solution into a 1/2 hour episode that goes away until next week.

If everyone would spend as much time and effort reasoning, as they do flying off the handle and selling catastrophes, the world would be a much less complex, much more manageable whole. Most things are simply a progression and chain of events, that are 1)explainable, 2) understandable, 3) manageable. We can't always control what happens, but that doesn't mean everything is a crisis either.

But, if you are shrewd and pay attention, you will see that with the American public, Crisis sells.

I wouldn't worry about your opinions of the President. It isn't like they are uncommon. And if they don't like it, too bad. It is a free country that depends on questioning and involvement to work properly.