Thursday, July 26, 2007

Life After Death

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but it occured to me today that when theists say that science doesn't know everything, like what happens after death, that they are begging the question. Only if we assume that something of a person's consciousness or subjective experience continues to exist after death can we even ask the question, "What happens after death?" Because, if one ceases to exist upon death, then naturally there is no after death to consider.

Typically, I answer the question, "What happens after death?" with the answer, "Nothing." But this answer, it occurs to me, implicitly accepts the premise of the question. It's like, say, someone were to ask, "After you make toast, what happens to the bread?" You could say, "Nothing happens to the bread," but that isn't entirely accurate. More accurately, there is no bread anymore for something to happen to. There's just toast. The toast was bread, the bread became toast, so to talk about what happens to the bread after it is turned into to toast is actually incoherent. A better answer is, "There is no bread for anything to happen to."

In the same way, a more accurate response to the question, "Well, what happens to you when you die?" is to say, "That question doesn't actually make any sense, since, after death, there is no 'you' for anything to happen to. It's like asking what happens to your car after it's sold as scrap. Things may happen to the parts, but there is actually no car for anything to happen to anymore."

Probably a fairly trivial point, but I like trivia.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Science Looks for True Explanations, Not Just "Natural" Ones

I get so tired of creationists constantly claiming that science only looks for "naturalistic" explanations and therefore a priori excludes supernatural ones. That's a load of crap. Science looks for explanations that are backed up by evidence, and supernatural explanations are only ruled out because there is never any evidence for them.

When creationists say that science is just "methodological naturalism," tell them they're full of shit. Science is about finding actual explanations instead of fantasy explanations. The reason fantasy explanations are rejected is not because science rules out the supernatural, it is because the purpose of science is to weed out things that are untrue, and fantasy explanations are untrue. Untrue explanations never have evidence to back them up, and that's why science rejects them.

When creationists say that science rejects supernatural explanations because it assumes "naturalistic" causes, tell them they're still full of shit. Science makes the assumption that evidence will lead to correct answers. It's not the fault of science that evidence never leads to supernatural explanations: it's the fault of the facts, which are that supernatural explanations aren't true. That's all.

The Religious Right Doesn't Actually Care What "The People" Think

In its quest to turn the US into a Christian theocracy, the religious right often criticizes judges who rule against them as going against "the will of the people," as if they actually give a shit about the will of the people. They don't. It's just a card they use when it happens to work in their favor, but when "the will of the people" isn't in accord with their theocratic agenda, they have no compunction about trying to override "the will of the people" and institute their agenda anyway.

Case in point. In Cincinnati, Ohio, two workers for an ironically (and gramatically incorrectly) named group Equal Rights Not Special Rights [sic] have been found guilty of using fraudulent names on a petition to get a measure repealing a law forbidding discrimination against gays onto the ballot. That's right: when there weren't enough people willing to sign the petition, showing that "the will of the people" was that the measure not be placed on the ballot, the religious right tried to cheat and override "the will of the people."

Just keep that in mind, folks. If you buy into the right's bullshit, believing that they actually care about the will of the people, don't be surprised when they continue doing what they are already doing: implementing their agenda regardless, even over the objections of the people. Because they don't give a shit what people think -- they think their invisible sky fairy has told them what is right and wrong and that listening to His will makes cheating and lying to get power A-OK. They think the people should listen to what they think their sky fairy says, not that they should listen to the will of the people.

Also, I love this whole "equal rights, not special rights" bullshit. Christians are already protected from discrimination under the law. So, how is it that when gays want the same protections they are asking for "special" rights? Wouldn't equal rights mean that they should get the same protection from discrimination as everyone else, including Christians?

Makes no goddamned sense.

Monday, July 23, 2007

The Senate After Dark

Here's what I wish one of the Democratic Senators had said last week during the all-night debate about the amendment to require troops to start pulling out of Iraq in 120 days:

"This all-night debate is, as the Republicans keep saying, political theatre. Certainly, staying up for an all-night session isn't much sufferinc compared to the suffering of our troops in Iraq. But it's the worst suffering we can impose upon those Senators who are unwilling to put an end to this travesty. If we could impose a greater burden on them and ourselves for their continuing support for a failed policy, I would do it in a heartbeat. But there isn't. And though losing a single night's sleep is a pretty pathetic sacrifice compared to our troops', if we aren't even willing to do that, then what the hell good are we anyway?"

That's what I would have said, I think, had I been up there.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Low Expectations

A recent intelligence estimate indicates that both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are back up to pre-9/11 strength despite the United States' six-year-long "war on terror," which, considering Al-Qaeda is the terrorist organization that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban is the group who gave them a base from which to plan and carry out those attacks, is a pretty damning indictment of the Bush regime's policies in carrying out this so-called "war."

But here's how Bush spun the news: He said that both groups "would have been stronger" if not for what the US has done to combat terrorism since 9/11. In short, Bush is telling the American people, "Well, it could have been worse."

Wow. Bush's only defense against criticism of his conduct of the "war on terror" is to tell us that he has managed to contain the threat at to the same level it was at when terrorists perpetrated the worst terrorist attack on American soil in the nation's history??? To contain the threat to the same level it was at when the US wasn't spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of American lives combatting worldwide terrorism? That's it? He thinks, somehow, that this proves he's doing a good job? That this is a good return on our investment?

It's like your house is on fire and the firemen come and kind of bumble around, sort of haphazardly fighting the fire as if untrained and drunk, while the Fire Chief goes out and gets more firemen and more equipment that don't seem to help much at all. After a few hours, your house is still on fire. The fire hasn't spread much, but it hasn't been extinguished either. When the firefighter tells you that despite tying up all the town's fire equipment and firemen at exhorbitant cost for the past few hours and yet failing to put the fire out, in what appears to be a case of gross incompetence, "Well, if we hadn't come, it would have been worse." Would you be happy with that level of peformance? Or would you say, "Well, yeah, but you haven't really helped much either. My house is still on fire. Aren't you supposed to, say, put it out or something?"

I'm not questioning whether the Bush regime managed to do something with the vast resources and powers of the United States at its disposal that hurt the terrorists and made them weaker than they otherwise would have been. Anyone who couldn't manage, if only by blind luck, to accomplish that while in charge of the world's lone remaining superpower in six fuckin' years would almost have to medically brain dead. A kid with Down's syndrome could manage that feat, the feat Bush is hanging his hat on.* No, the question is, were the strategy and policies adopted by the Bush regime as effective as could be realistically expected? Did they work as the regime claimed they would? Were those strategies and policies adopted for sound reasons?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. The Bush regime's policies have been utter failures, squandering resources and lives with little or no return. Nothing has gone as the regime planned or as it claimed. The results have been far worse than predicted time and again, often disastrously so. And lastly, the regime set its course in the face of evidence rather than in accord with it, failing to consider important lessons of the past, failing to use available information and facts to form its policies, and ignoring the advice of experts. The mistakes made by the regime were, by and large, completely avoidable, the results predictable, and the decisions foolish. That's poor job performance, no matter how you try to spin it. Regular people get summarily fired for job performance like that.

And it's no different with the report on those 18 benchmarks set by Congress for progress in Iraq. None of the benchmarks was met, while there is only "satisfactory" progress towards eight of them. Bush trumpets this like a victory or a good job performance appraisal. But, the fact is, the Iraqis are failing to make even satisfactory progress in achieving 10 of the 18 goals.

And this is good news, according to Bush? Yeah, right. Bush has gone from practicing the politics of personal destruction to practicing the politics of lowered expectations. Real low, I think.

Not many are buying it, and that's a good thing.

*Oh, how I wish we could replace Bush and Cheney with some kids who have Down's syndrome. Seriously. They would almost have to be better, if only because, by making few decisions, they wouldn't make so many bad ones.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Republicans Hate The Disabled

I am not making this up. Former US Surgeon General Richard Carmona, in testimony before Congress, said that his activities were interfered with by Bush political appointees pursuing a political agenda to the point that, "he was prevented from attending a Special Olympics event to talk about health and disabilities."

He said, "I was told I would be helping a politically prominent family, [and] why would I want to help those people?"

Yes, it's true. Because Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of Edward Kennedy, founded the Special Olympics, the Bush regime has apparently decided, politically, that supporting it wouldn't be supporting the disabled, it would be supporting Democrats. Yeah. Because everyone knows a Kennedy founded the goddamned Special Olympics. Oh, wait, nobody does. I didn't. Not until today.

Don't forget that these assholes are the ones out claiming that the Democrats want to stop the calamitous war in Iraq solely for political reasons. Even if this accusation were true, and I'm sure that for some Democrats it is and for some it isn't, it still isn't at all as low as boycotting the fucking Special Olympics because of politics. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, man.

Not to mention that complaining that the Democrats wanting to stop the politically-motivated Iraq war for political reasons is pretty goddamned ironic. Hello pot, this is the kettle...'re black!

Religious Freedom = "Freedom" For Christians, Not Others

When arguing for their theocratic cause, far-right Christians often talk about "religion" being kept out of schools or the public square, as if they are fighting for the rights of all religious people, not just Christians. They don't want Christian theocracy, they say, just more tolerance for religious views.

They're full of shit. Yesterday, Christians protested and disrupted an opening prayer being delivered by a Hindu chaplain in the US Senate. They fight so hard to make sure that it's okay to have religious invocations at government functions, but then get pissed if it's not a Christian invocation.

They aren't fighting for the rights of the religious, they're fighting to make the US a Christian theocracy, and they only want to put prayer and religious indoctrination in the schools if it's Christian prayer and Christian indoctrination.

Bush: White House Officials Are Above The Law

Yes, it's true. In his press conference yesterday, Bush admitted "that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of [undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame]." Naturally, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, elected to execute and uphold the law, will go to any length to uncover criminal wrongdoing in his own backyard, right?

Not so much. Seems there won't be an investigation -- shock! -- and that Bush also doesn't understand what goddamned investigations are for, as he said, "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?"

You investigate, Mr. President, in order to find out who did it. You don't wait until they confess and then think about an investigation.

But, of course, Bush is lying there anyway, because he knows who did it, just like we all do: Rove and Cheney. He just doesn't care, because, as the title says, Bush is not too subtly telling us that White House officials are above the law.

Just like how he commuted Scooter Libby's 30-month sentence for being "excessive," despite that sentence being, according to sentencing judge Reggie B. Walton, on the low end of the sentencing guidelines, guidelines that the Bush regime just recently has been arguing should be upheld and made mandatory. Because, you see, the sentencing guidelines are only "excessive" for those above the law, that is to say, White House staffers, but not for everyone else, for whom they are fair and appropriate.

The Limits of Executive Privilege

Yesterday, former Bush regime counsel Harriet Miers failed to appear before before the House Judiciary Committee in violation of a congressional subpeona, apparently because she was ordered not to appear by the president as an assertion of executive privilege. Now, as I have noted in the past, executive privilege is a really screwy thing, not really being actually granted to the president in the Constitution, and what it actually entails and what is covered have never been fully delineated.

Nonetheless, under even very liberal interpretations of what executive privilege covers, I don't see any way it can be construed to mean, as the Bush regime contends, that it can be used to immunize staffers from contempt of Congress charges for failing to appear. The president can probably invoke privilege to keep his aides from answering certain questions, but how can a staffer simply showing up at a congressional committee hearing possibly violate executive privilege? Clearly, it can't.

And, just like with the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate one's self, one can only invoke executive privilege in response to a question asking for information that is privileged. You can't refuse to come to court or appear before Congress just because you're afraid they might ask questions that you would have the right to refuse to answer. You have to show up and be asked such a question and then invoke your right to refuse to answer. You can't invoke a right in the absence of a threat to that right, and simply responding to a congressional subpeona is not, in and of itself, a threat to either Fifth Amendment or executive privilege rights.

Also, if the Bush regime's arguments were upheld, then Congress' oversight responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution would be completely impossible for Congress to fulfill. If the White House can immunize any of its staff from having to appear before Congress, then Congress can't possibly ever get information about wrongdoing in the White House. The president would simply never let anyone testify in front of Congress, which is clearly not within the president's powers, executive privilege or no.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Tucker Carlson Is An Asshole

Last night, on CNN, Tucker Carlson had Michael Rectenwald, founder of the group Citizens for Legitimate Government, on his show. Rectenwald's group, apparently, are the ones who released the DC Madam phone list on which Republican Senator David Vitter appeared. Vitter, of course, being a supposed champion of marriage and "family values" is rightly being called the mat now for hypocrisy, especially since he shat all over Clinton for the impropriety of his affair with Monica Lewinsky as if were a bastion of morality and monogamy.

Well, Carlson, who I'm sure never questioned why Clinton's sexcapades were fair game, was all outraged that Vitter's private life should become public and then started asking Rectenwald about Rectenwald's personal and sexual life in an attempt to claim that somehow if Rectenwald's private life should be private Vitter's should too.

Of course, Carlson is too smart not to know how full of shit he is, and that's why he's an asshole. There are two reasons why Vitter's private life is fair game and Rectenwald's isn't, both of which Carlson is surely aware of. First, Vitter is a fucking public official and Rectenwald isn't. Whether the private conduct of public officials should be fair game or not is a valid point, but it wasn't the point Carlson was making. As things stand now, though, the private conduct of public officials is definitely fair game. But, secondly, and more importantly, hiring prostitutes is illegal in Washington DC, so evidence that a goddamned lawmaker in a position of great power and public trust is breaking the law is certainly not a private matter and is fair game.

Now, personally, I don't care if Vitter saw prostitutes and I don't think prostitution should be illegal. But, as long as paying for sex is a crime in Washington DC, it is certainly within the public's rights to know if a public official is paying for sex in DC. As a matter of course, you forfeit your right to privacy when you commit a crime, and since Carlson didn't have any evidence that Rectenwald had committed a crime in his personal or sexual life, there's no comparison between probing Vitter's private life and Rectenwald's.

And, of course, though Clinton committed perjury by lying about getting blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office isn't a crime, so where the fuck was Carlson when Ken Starr was probing into Clinton's non-illegal private life? Try as I might, I don't recall any righteous indignation from Carlson then. And Clinton was being forced to testify under oath about his private sex life by the Republicans, which is worlds away from simply publishing a list of phone numbers of the DC Madam's clients that Vitter's number is on.


Oh, Now You Want To Be Against The War?!?

Because there wasn't anything on my TiVo that I wanted to watch this morning (okay, there was, but those shows were all "us" shows that I have to wait and watch with my girlfriend), I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC, hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough. And there he is, sounding almost like Keith Olbermann, making snide remarks about how just yesterday the Iraqi government had met none of the benchmarks set for them but that now the Bush regime is claiming they've met eight of the fifteen and how amazing it is that the Iraqis managed that in twenty-four hours, and about how the US could have used all the resources squandered in failed nation building in Iraq to actually fight terrorists.

Well, isn't it great that Republicans like Scarborough and Lindsey Graham have noticed what a clusterfuck Iraq is after only four years of supporting the disastrous decisions of the incompetent Bush regime? Isn't it great that now that things are so fucked up that only liars and the willfully blind could claim they're going well they have the courage to speak up and voice their opposition?

It's kind of like Bush drove our car into a muddy ditch, and for the past four years while Bush was spinning the car's wheels trying to get out but only digging them in deeper, these guys have been standing by and cheering him as the car got more and more stuck. Only now, when Bush has lit a match and set the goddamned car on fucking fire have they finally decided that the situation is so far gone that they can safely say that Bush's plan to get the car out of the ditch isn't working.

You know what I want the Republicans to do? Shut the fuck up. Don't grandstand and act like you've used your amazing vision to see what no one else can. Don't act like you didn't know Iraq was a disaster a long time ago but supported the strategy anyway because you thought it was politically to your advantage. Show a little goddamned humility, admit you were wrong, and start working with the Democrats to fix it. You don't have to suck up to the Democrats, assholes, 'cause lots of them supported the war for far too long too, and they don't have a great plan to fix things either. But don't act like you've been on the side of the fucking angels this whole time. Don't act like you didn't help and actively support getting the US into this mess.

Because those of us who actually did see what a fucking calamity this was going to be before the US invaded Iraq, those of us who didn't buy Bush's bullshit assertions about WMDs and Saddam's connection to 9-11, those of us who have been trying to get Rumsfeld and Rice and Cheney and Bush to see reality and change course for the past four fucking years aren't buying your newfound conversion of conscience. You were for the war when you thought it was the right thing to do politically and now you're against it for the same reason. Admit it and move on.

And, for fuck's sake, stop taking snide potshots at the Bush regime from the sidelines as if you had nothing to do with what happened. You're not outsiders who could only stand by and watch like the rest of us. You are them, you are the ones who did this, and you don't get to snipe at the guy you put in power and supported now.


Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Your Government at Work

Did you hear? According to a US federal appeals court, the government can violate Americans' rights with impunity as long as the government keeps those violations secret. Because, you see, in order to have what is called "standing" to sue the government over an illegal program that violates the citizens' civil rights, a citizen must be able to prove that he or she personally had his or her rights violated. Knowing that the government program, in general, is unconstitutional and violates our rights isn't enough. To sue, we must know whose rights, specifically, have been violated.

So, all the government has to do, according to this ruling, is simply keep secret any information about who was targeted by a program, say, for instance, who was illegally spied on by the Bush regime's warrantless wiretapping program, and the program can never be challenged in court.

In other words, the court ruled that the Judicial Branch has no role in keeping the Executive Branch in check if the Executive Branch keeps its excesses, or at least whose rights it violated during those excesses, secret.

Well, that's fantastic. Any right the government can violate with impunity is no right at all, and, as long as the government makes sure the citizens don't know whose rights the government is violating, the government can apparently violate any right they want.

I guess we never really needed those pesky "checks and balances" anyway, right? They're like the appendix, an extra organ that doesn't really do much and really isn't needed anymore.

Or so I gather.

Gonzales lied to Congres...

...and in other news, the sky is blue.

Okay, so I don't suppose it is a shock to anyone that we now know Gonzales lied to Congress about whether the Justice Department had used the Patriot Act to commit civil rights abuses. Of course there were abuses -- when government is given wide-ranging powers with little mechanism for oversight like in the Patriot Act, abuses are inevitable -- and, of course, just like with the Attorney General's new power to appoint US Attorneys without Senate approval, Gonzales knew the Justice Department's spiffy new Patriot Act powers would be taken away by Congress if he admitted how those powers had been misused. So, naturally, he lied. It seems to be in his nature, along with most of the Bush regime's other political appointees.

Now, I don't understand how anyone with the slightest bit of sense didn't know that this would happen. I don't know how, therefore, anyone, citizen or Senator, could be stupid enough to support legislation like the Patriot Act for even a moment. But what I especially don't understand is how anyone -- liberal, conservative, whatever -- could not want to repeal the Patriot Act now that we have seen the government not only abuse those powers but also lie about those abuses in order to keep those powers.

Here's a new rule: Any power that high-ranking government officials are willing to lie about abusing in order to keep is a power the government should not have. If the government cannot make a convincing argument that, despite abuse of a power, it is still in the best interests of the people and the nation for the government to continue to have that power, then the government can no longer be trusted to have that power.

Lying about abuses of a power in order to keep that power is just about the best evidence I can think of that the government wants that power for power's sake, not for our sake. Nothing could be more clear.

This country was founded on the notion that the greatest threat to the American people was the American government itself. Perhaps we should spend a little more time protecting ourselves against the threat we do have power over, our own government. After all, while we can never make terrorists stop hating us, we can actually strip powers from our own government that are not being used in our best interests.

Monday, July 09, 2007

How Long Do We Wait?

While all indications -- shock! -- are that the so-called "surge" of troops in Iraq is failing, all we hear out of the Bush regime is that we have to give the surge more time to work. "The troops only got there two weeks ago," they say.

Well, first off, the surge started in January. Only the last brigade of troops in the surge arrived recently. The first troops arrived six months ago. Despite what the regime claims, the surge has been going on for six months, not two weeks.

But, more importantly, how much longer can we wait while Bush runs out the clock on his presidency by asking us to wait and see if his new dipshit strategy will work any better than his last one? How long do you let a guy keep working on your garbage disposal even after he made your pipes burst and flooded your kitchen with sewage, just because he says, "Wait, wait, I've got a new idea. Give me a minute to try it..."? How long do you sit listening to the ominous rumbling in your pipes while the guy says, "It hasn't been long enough. Just wait and see," while you're standing ankle-deep in water and muck?

Because that's exactly what Bush is asking us to do now. To trust him, give him a chance to let his new plan -- the plan the regime is already lying about by claiming it only started two weeks ago -- work, even though we're more like neck deep in the shit because of his past errors in judgment. I mean, where does it end? Because Bush will just come up with a new flawed strategy after this one and say we have now should wait until we see what happens with that one before Congress or anyone else should step in. And another after that, and another, until Bush's term ends and he can hand off this clusterfuck to the next President.

We don't need to wait to see if the surge will work. We knew before the regime implemented the surge that it wouldn't work, we have six months and counting of evidence that it isn't working, and we have no reason to give the Bush regime the benefit of the doubt that they have a plan to make it work.

Rhetorical tricks like "wait and see" may work on the Faux News-watching mouthbreathers, but don't let it work on you. Bush is incompetent, he doesn't listen to his commanders, and he's just running out the clock. There's no reason to let him continue with this disastrous course of action.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

"Free Speech Zones"

This sort of thing really gets my goat up. I'm an advocate of gay rights and I wish that Christians and bigots -- and bigots hiding behind Christianity as an excuse for their own bigotry -- didn't feel the need to protest at gay pride events. I don't know why they give a shit which consenting adults other consenting adults have romantic relationships with. Nonetheless, they have the right to protest and speak their piece, just like everyone else. "Free speech zones" are nothing more than prior restraint on free speech and cannot be allowed in a free and politically active society.

I am using this particular example to make my point on this clear: I don't support free speech only when I agree with it. I support free speech universally, for those whose opinions I endorse and those whose opinions I loathe. I am no less enraged by anti-gay protestors being faced with ridiculous, arbitrary rules like the one mentioned in the linked article, where police told anti-gay protestors, "bigger people could carry bigger signs than smaller people - it all depended on how big your torso was," than I am when it is those espousing liberal views being restrained.

If we are willing to take freedom of speech away from those we disagree with, we have no freedom of speech. It's that simple.

Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Justice For Some...

Well, the leader of the party of "personal responsibility" has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence. It means Libby, who lied to investigators and a grand jury about his knowledge of a White House leak of the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, will not spend a day in jail.

That's right. The Federal government will send you to jail for using medical marijuana legally prescribed to you under state law in Oregon and California, but if you lie about your knowledge of leaking classified information about an undercover CIA operative -- you know, one of the folks on the front line of the so-called "war on terror" -- you won't spend a day in jail. Awesome.

That's justice in the United States of America in 2007 under the Bush regime.

Of course, the White House is trying to spin how the commutation doesn't remove the conviction from Libby's record like a full pardon would, affecting his career and future, and how Libby will still have to pay a $250,000 fine.

But, of course, that's bullshit. For one thing, the conviction isn't going to stop Libby from getting top dollar gigs as a political consultant for conservative causes, as a TV pundit, or on the lecture circuit. He'll make more doing one speech than you or I make in a year. He'll make enough scratch to pay that fine in a week, if he even ends up paying it at all. After all, all those big dollar conservative supporters will probably help their friend Scooter out, and even if they don't, the smart money is on Bush totally pardoning Scooter after the '08 election, when it won't be as politically dangerous.

No, Libby isn't going to pay a damned cent or spend a day in jail for helping to cover up a crime that strikes at the very heart of the ability of the US to defend itself and prevent future mistakes along the line of the cluster fuck in Iraq. And, of course, Karl Rove, who almost certainly was the one who decided to leak Plame's identity, won't ever step into a courtroom to answer for acts that, even under a charitable interpretation, could easily be considered treason.

When the Republicans say that they are for "personal responsibility," remember that what they mean is personal responsibility for you and me, and all the other small fries out there who don't have multimillion dollar bank accounts and tax shelters in the Caymans. But not them. Not Bush, or Cheney, or Rove, or Gonzales, or DeLay, or Rumsfeld, or Rice, or any of the other people who have fucked up our country and then blamed their failures on everyone else. Not them. Not Scooter Libby.

Just you. And me.