Earlier last week, Amnesty International (AI) publicized its annual report, which accused the United States of being among the world's worst human rights offenders and, in a strikingly audacious move, labeled Guantánamo "the gulag of our times"—an outrageous assertion, as I will explain below. In the opinion pages of last Friday's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman declared that our "war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp" in Cuba "has become worse than an embarrassment." ("Just Shut It Down," 27 May 2005, A23) Strong words—not as bold, certainly, as equating the camp to the Soviet peasant prisons that brutally enforced collectivism and left millions in starvation, as the goods they harvested at gunpoint were shuttled off for the benefit of the Kremlin.

Guantánamo is, by contrast, a complex of detention facilities in which several hundreds of suspected terrorists have been held: incommunicado and without charge, trial by jury or legal counsel, in conditions that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Human Rights Watch and AI find appalling. Moreover, it is well-known that the Administration ducked the prerogatives of international humanitarian law (notably the 3rd Geneva Conventions) and, many argue, the U.S. Constitution, in its prosecution of captured suspects to whom it refuses to apply prisoner of war (POW) status. The prisoners at Guantánamo, in effect, are 'enemy combatants' with no legal rights. But the prosecution of suspected terrorists is not quite the issue here.

The matter at hand is whether we, the American people, can accept the lasting black eye landed on our image by what is being done in our name on a leased patch of land in Cuba. Friedman, not to be outdone by AI's scathing assessment, issues a plea to the President. "I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down," he writes, which logically has two things wrong with it. Americans are getting killed, in Iraq, because they're being blown up and shot down by insurgents. I honestly don't believe Guantánamo plays a factor in our occupation.

So why should we shut down Gitmo? According to Friedman, the "P.O.W." camp must be immediately discontinued because, to paraphrase, it is dealing serious harm to our global image and is counterproductive to winning the war on terror, because it is producing the effect of "inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy ... for those who would do us ill." Gitmo is thus a propaganda victory for al Qaeda and its affiliates. Friedman's solution, in which we see the second problem with his argument, is to "put them on trial, convict as many possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and then simply let the rest go home or to a third country." The last of these is known as 'extraordinary rendition,' where the suspects – or enemy combatants, depending on who's talking — are flown to their country of residence. The Administration relies on a verbal assurance that the respective regimes will not torture the prisoners; no confirmation seems necessary, perhaps because such an attempt would be seen as violating a trust between the United States and whatever country is the prisoner's former home. Friedman's solution, in part, seems to encourage this CIA practice.

Gitmo ought not be shut down. It should be made more transparent, and the officials accountable for any wrongdoing. At the very least, charges against the prisoners ought be given. This is the lowest common standard; in this war on terrorism, it's the best for which we can hope — not only for us Americans, but for the entire world and how we appear to them. How else will the vital cooperation to defeat al Qaeda be achieved if most people abroad hold us in their minds as barbarians? Not by formenting terrorism, surely.

Have returned from seeing Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith at the Uptown in Washington. Always great to see films at that theatre, albeit the sometimes excessively long line (expected for such a place). The last Star Wars, the one that adjoins the two trilogies, was very satisfying in that all the questions you may still have are answered. The circle is closed, and the final pieces are locked into place. The low points go to the poor delivery of sometimes flat, dull dialogue that detracts from the overall spectacle, saturated with CG to the point at which the action is amassed into a dizzing blur. The magic of the Jedi loses its novelty in the process, as well, which is a shame.

Moreover, Revenge is an allegorical morality play, but one that is only half-formed. The Jedi, portrayed in my interpretation as moral absolutists, are defending their 'Old Order' from the Sith, who are the relativists, conceiving the whole business of ethics as tied to one's personal perspective. This point is amplified throughout, until the stirring climax, after which the circle is drawn to its conclusion. I could go into more detail here, but the film premiered just about two days ago (counting the midnight showing), so I'll not ruin anything for those left to see it, who number in the several millions

It's the last Star Wars; but, as A.O. Scott of the New York Times pointed out, it's the middle of the two trilogies. In other words, you are bound to see a lot of (successfully) patched ends and the like. More to the point, Scott's well-crafted review reads that the film "is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power." You know, that sort of artsy conjecturing from a premiere elite paper like The Times. Echoing the full-circle idea, Scott writes: "Democracies swell into empires, empires are toppled by revolutions, fathers abandon their sons and sons find their fathers." That's about all there is to it. And other such nondescript generalities. Well ... just see it. By the way, I didn't give away shit.

The Nationals defeated the Milwaukee Brewers 1-0 tonight, in an electrifying ninth inning before which the game was stuck at zero to zero. I was glad I was there to see it. It was great.

Was at HFStival 2005 in Baltimore yesterday. M&T Bank Stadium. Had a great time, lost a free hat in an excessively chaotic mosh pit. Also enjoyed the gouging, as in $4 for a bottle of water. Police pretty much everywhere, a chopper circling overhead during the scorching afternoon. A cool rain was very much welcomed, and later a thunderstorm nearly canceled the event entirely. Foo Fighters was incredible, as was Coldplay and ... They Might Be Giants (you guessed it). By the way, I'm not moshing for awhile. It was too much. Fuckin' crowd-surfer jackasses. All in all, a lot of fun. I'm out of money.

Everything is pretty much back to normal, I think. I got some outside help. (You know who you are.) Oh, yeah, have to put that counter back on. You know, the real-time cost of the Iraq war? Yeah, that little counter. It's good to be back.

The new episodes of Family Guy have finally returned to network TV. After watching the first of the new season last night, it looks to me that it's as great as ever. Seriously, Mr. MacFarlane and his crew still got it. Thank you, FOX. And, if you would also end my beloved Simpsons and lay it to rest, another thanks would be coming your way.

Sorry about the DeLay. And there's nothing wrong with your browser; the blog has major issues, serious and critical issues which I at the moment have no time to take care of. But once I do, I'll get that commentin' up in order once and for all, and tell ya about Spain (with pictures). And if you haven't heard Ambulance Ltd, get that shit now! It's beyond description, to borrow Mr. Garcia's phrase. It seems that while I was (poorly) attempting to fiddle with the comment code I messed up the layout and font-size info ... needless to say, the site is a little funny looking right now. And the Blogger Help people have not returned my email. Shame on them. Anyways, I'm tired so I'm-a go sleep.

Speaking of the President, his address today confirms his refusal to face reality. Below is an excerpt; I have put emphasis on the parts of it where he either ignores the truth or patently uses the horrific attacks on our nation as an implicit justification of the attack on Iraq:

"On this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from a grave danger. Before coalition forces arrived, Iraq was ruled by a dictatorship that murdered its own citizens, threatened its neighbors, and defied the world. We knew of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew of his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction, and we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently. We must, and we will, confront threats to America before they fully materialize. ..."

President Bush continues to believe, according to the address he delivered today, that we "disarmed" a regime of the WMD it did not have, but claimed it did so as to justify the war in the first place. The President also invoked 'defense' as a cover for what was clearly an act of aggression; an illegal one at that, as conceded by Richard Perle, one of the very Pentagon officials among those who wanted this war more than anyone in the administration. And what has become standard practice, Bush once again exploits the September 11 attacks to serve as a pretext for the radical notion of 'pre-emptive' war, in of itself disgusting and, of course, a slap in the face of the victims and their families. Toward the end of the address, Bush says that only through "the fire of liberty" will we "purge the ideologies of murder by offering hope" to the oppressed.

To briefly deconstruct, the attack on Iraq and subsequent invasion was simply a way to give hope to the 26 million people chained under Hussein's regime, wholly excluding the means by which we freed them. But having done so, we will rid the world of "ideologies of murder" (methods, like 'Shock and Awe') and see freedom spread like fire throughout the world. Only in passing does he give his token words of 'thanks' to our GIs, excusing their tragic deaths by saying the war we waged on Iraq two years ago was essentially an act of self-defense that has inspired the influence of freedom in that region, while "their sacrifice has added to America's security and the freedom of the world." I really don't know what is worse: continuing to blind oneself to reality, or bastardizing the memory of the fallen. Shame on you, Mr. President.

"... I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lighted with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, 'Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abudance of her delicacies.' " (Book of Revelation 18:1-3)

IN MEMORY OF THE INNOCENT THAT HAVE DIED IN THIS WAR, AND WITH THE RECOGNITION OF THE EVIL COMMITTED IN OUR NAME FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD ENDS - BRING OUR TROOPS HOME AS SOON AS IS POSSIBLE, MR. PRESIDENT

Today marks the 2nd anniversary of the 'decapitation strike' that ousted the regime of Saddam Hussein, a brutal tyrant who kept 26 million people in shackles. The Iraqi people are inherently better off now, but that simple fact does not shield the cold truth: at least 17,000 Iraqi civilians dead and 1,513 of our soldiers killed since it all started. It is incredible how the justification has changed so much in that time. But no matter what end we have reached, that does not excuse the means we used to get there. We are over six weeks past the historic elections, in which about 8 million people braved the insurgent threats and voted. There is no downplaying that. Yet we still occupy their country, and we remain sitting ducks. This is a tragedy we all started, but I hope it is one that can be salvaged through time. In that, a lasting good can come of it, and our GIs can return to their homes and families with honor.

That's U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan, laying a wreath ... whaa? What, is he retarded? (It really doesn't help when you acknowledge that he was on his way to a Holocaust memorial in Israel.) Ridiculous, Mr. Annan.

On the 22nd, I will be leaving for Spain for eight days. I promise to hit you back about that. In the interim, though, the most important point on my agenda is to get this facackta commenting thing working again. A confidant has given me the right link, and time permitting I'll just go ahead and fix the damn thing. Shouldn't take long.

Anyways, until then I might as well try and find out some things about Spain; or, as the Spainairds call it, España. Do you see how lazy we are? 'Why have three long-winded syllables when you can condense them into one?' Exactly. We Americans put a lot of value in efficiency, even when it may piss people off.

Oh, yeah, I need to figure out how to get the right adapter (you know, the voltage is different over there). And watch out for those ETA fuckers.

Returned from seeing George Carlin at the Warner Theatre tonight, his first performance since being out of rehab. It was a very good show, I'd have to say. Carlin is certainly what I would call the ultimate observational humorist. And, really, what most may very well see as an embittered cynic, as well. He is also fearless in how he says what you're afraid to say, pointing out life's absurdities and hypocrises. Some may call him a bit misanthropic, and that's understandable. But he recognizes the power of language, in my opinion the most powerful tool ever created by Man, and everything that follows from it. In the end, he's brilliant.

It was as I began to think of what I would say in response to the historic Iraq election last Sunday [the 30th of January] that I, for the first time, really questioned the purpose of all of this. By which I mean this blog. In a little over two weeks from now, I (and I alone, as far as I know) will quietly celebrate this Center's 2nd anniversary. [That is today.] On the eve of that milestone, I ask myself: What is the point of this? In all honesty, who is actually reading this thing? Mr. Lederer, I know you do. (And by the way, commenting should be up and running as soon as I can talk some sense to these Blogger Help people; just kidding, you guys are great.)

Well, this is indeed a ramble. Perhaps the first actual "random rant" in a long time, if not ever. But anyways, I ain't going to quit now. I got a domain last November, and I'm not stopping this shit until I get that up and running. More immediately, I got to get this comment thing going again ... But you all don't have to worry about that.

So a lot of people ask me: What do you believe? I think that's phrased wrong, because it's really not a matter of belief as much as it is what I think. I consider myself rational, for starters. Hopefully, I am. At least most of the time. People tell me: You must have biases, ideological ... Look. I don't want my mind defined. Do I have an ideology? I believe I've answered that before. But this time I am going to lay out my opinions, or if you will, my beliefs. Here we go:

One cannot know anything, for 'knowing' to the fullest extent is simply not possible. There are simply too many variables, points of consideration, whatever. It is too much for the mind to really process and understand the totality of any single thing. There is a range of comprehension.

People are generally humane and tolerant and to at least some degree sympathetic. Of course, there are bad people, and evil people. There always have been. That poses the question of what is 'evil', is it relative or absolute or what, you know. Well, it is a lot easier to distinguish evil from good than evil from a lesser evil. Some things are in the eye of the beholder, and I suppose evil can be one of those things. (See below)

Language is the most powerful tool ever created; with it, essentially all else follows. It is a tool of control, primarily. Communication as well, yes, but that is often directed toward the purposes of dissemination (or propagation, from which we have 'propaganda') and manipulation, and thus control. In this instance, it is control of thought we are speaking of, as the words we speak and write are directly tied to what we think. Therefore, what we 'know' to be truth.

Our insignificance as a species in relation to the known universe is so profound that it nears the point of absurdity that one could possibly think it was all made for us and nothing else. Which brings me to the following:

What is religion? Personally, I see three principal elements to it: the faith, the community, and the insitution. I observe of the three the faith to be the most important, and the institution the most dangerous. The communities brought together and enriched by their respective common faiths is the most inspiring example: religion is a great, effective way to bring people together. Shared purpose is a consequence of it, and I think the communal aspect provides some sort of key toward the perception of the unknown.

Faith is a complex thing. I don't 'know' it, but I have some thoughts regarding God, a proposition which in of itself appears wholly arrogant for the simple reason that God must be so beyond comprehension that the very idea of pretending to define it would be, well, wholly arrogant and, indeed, quite stupid. But I do have thoughts. After all (and I'm borrowing this paraphrase from someone whose name escapes me at the moment), why would one believe that God denied us the use of the minds He created for us, right?

The truth is, I'm a kind of agnostic. I don't think one can either prove nor disprove God's existence. To do either would be, as I have said, arrogant far beyond anyone's understanding, much less my own. Carl Sagan, a great scientific 'populizer', wrote that we don't have as much neurons as there are atoms in a grain of salt. How, then, could we even pretend to 'know' something as great as the universe, much less 'know' what God is? (See above)

I don't like absolutes, but I feel like I can say that I will never (or at least try to) assume anything. Accordingly, I will never attempt to 'know' one's intentions. All we can perceive are (perceived) actions, at least their consequences - not much else in that respect. This brings me to something else here:

Everything is in the mind: perception, most notably, from which all else follows suit. Our sense of reality and truth, for instance, forms the core of our psychology. And the idea of 'intelligence' is a wholly complex one, which cannot be assigned to a meaningless IQ number. I am not going to even pretend to think to know what intelligence, or even consciousness, really is. I suppose I will never be able to know. At least I can accept that much. Truth is painfully relative, and is thus unknowable. Our search for it can be said to be neverending for that reason. It is our humanity that we must fight to protect.

The concentration of power is eminently dangerous, and if history should serve to be any sort of guide, we ought to have learned by now that power left in a few hands (either effectively or formally) is an ominous prospect.

Social harmony is more important for the common good than social hierarchy. How society should be structured is largely dependent on the people's will, which should appear obvious. It may be asked: Am I a populist? Well, I may hold beliefs that could appear to sound populist in nature, but I can't say if I am a doctrinaire populist or not, or a doctrinaire anything. And that's another thing, come to think of it ...

I don't like doctrines or ideologies. Really, I don't like anything that, in effect, limits the range of thought. I have a strong distrust of absolutist and extremist thinking. It's a waste of time, in that it fails to acknowledge the world's overwhelming complexities, and so is downright arrogant in its willfull distortion of the overwhelming complexity of the world into false dichotomies of black and white or good and bad.

Morality does not exist in a vacuum. The idea of moral universalism is a noble one albeit impractical for the reason that we're human, after all. One can say that, in principle, murder is always wrong and that every life is equal, but whether one can believe that given every circumstance is a completely different matter. Recent history is rife with such examples.

We are all very lucky to inhabit this planet, and as such we are all really in this together. Nationality, then, shouldn't matter so much. Some observe that loyalty to a 'nation' is irrational. Nevertheless, I am very proud to have been born in the United States. I do love this country. That is why I am particularly critical of the present administration. I feel like it is attempting to take what is great about America away from all of us, and in its place impose a radicalist military-security state in which the traditional notions of individual liberty and progress are marginalized and reversed. I do not want to know what may take its stead. I do not pretend to predict the future, but I shudder at the thought of four more years and all that can happen in that space of time, and all that could entail for us Americans and no doubt the world.

At this point, you are probably asking yourself: This guy must be left of center, right? A liberal, no? Well, I'd hate to have anyone classify my mind, but there are some things of liberal philosophy that are agreeable to me, as there are of conservative philosophy. I oppose this present government for the simple reason that it appears to be the most anti-American of any we've had. I am serious. This should seem obvious, I think. Now, and I must make this clear, I am not saying that those who voted for the incumbents in 2004 (like my brother), or voted them in the first time in 2000 (like my father), are anti-American, of course. I guess they were not allowed to know. For the proverbial wool had been pulled over our eyes not once but twice, and sometime down the road we will pay a terrible price for our collective gullibility. I don't want it to happen, either; I hope to God it doesn't. I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's angel, who holds the looking-glass and, as she turns it, shows to the masses their interest in their ruin and their ruin in their interest. But what of my political beliefs?

First off, let me say the following: I do not like politics. By that I mean I do not like the games and the politicking. Political thought, however, that's interesting. And there's a lot of hope, hope for humanity, within that. The maneuvering, the PR images and the symbols and the bullshit, the partisan rhetoric and the 'talking points' ... to hell with it. We don't need it, and all it does is sully the discourse and, really, help destroy what is great about politics. That is, its capacity to change the world for the better. But I digress.

I believe power carries with it an enormous obligation. It would follow that concentrated power, then, would lead to concentrated responsibility. But in a representative system such as ours, that responsibility is shared by all. You, me, and every citizen in this nation shares some part of the responsibility for the actions of our government. That is no small issue. Not at all. In a democratic country such as ours, which I am very proud to have been born into, public accountability is one of the best things for which we as citizens can hope.

There is, I think, no absolute delineation of 'good' and 'evil', and I know that this sounds very pessimistic, but rather a continuum or a range of evilness in this world. So it's not a matter of ethically 'best', but 'least worst'. And I say with the deepest sincerity that we live in the least worst nation in the entire world. I see how it can really reflect how sad the state of the world is when one can say that, I suppose, but I do believe it. I say 'nation', keep in mind, meaning the government under which we are ... well, governed. I have immensely more admiration and optimism for this country than the government, that's for damn sure. Of course, I mean the people. I don't think the state and the people ought ever be thought of as one. In a democracy such as ours, the state is supposed to represent the people, but the two remain distinct. Can't forget that. Unless, of course, we "accept totalitarian doctrine" and believe that the people and the state are one, as one of the great sages of the twentieth century reminds us.

There are four major things that I cannot seem to tolerate when I think about it, cannot accept: assumptions, generalizations, absolutes, and extremes. They're intolerable because they simplify and muddy things to the point where rationality is out of the discussion. And rationality is something we really need to hold onto as a species, particularly in this new century, when times appear more dangerous than they ever have been. That may sound like a generalization right there, but I hold it true. Well, more dangerous than ever except for when the western hemisphere was brought to the brink of self-destruction 43 years ago, and then saved from certain oblivion by the single word of a Soviet submarine commander. But that was before my time ...

(. . .WRAPPING THIS UP, PROMISE. . .)

We are four years into the 21st century. Many questions arise, seemingly out of nowhere but the interminable ticker-tape of the present: Where are we heading? What lies there? How can we get to it? I do not pretend to know the answers to any of these. All I know, or think I know, is that as of now the world is fucked. Sorry about the cynicism, but that's how it seems to be faring. Now, this sorry state of things won't last forever, I hope, but only God knows when exactly it will end. The fucked state of the planet, that is, not the planet itself. Because this world is so filled with hate, and yet so filled with everything else to counteract it, we must harness all the energy we can to, essentially, get people to chill again. Enough with the beheading and the bombing and the screaming and the threatening, I say. Enough! For this is a universal call for sanity, and for reason. A new enlightenment, that is what we all need.

In the end, my thoughts and beliefs matter little. Not to you, not to society, not to the world. Hardly anyone actually reads this blog with any sort of regularity. Once I get that domain to work (I've been pressed for time these past few months), that should help, but still I will be but a shadow in the dust compared to so many of those other blogs you've heard of. You know, the ones that go after journalists and discredit their reputations. But that ain't what I'm here for. For two years, I have written whatever the hell I want without fear of government reprisal (although this site has been accessed at least once by the Defense Department) or censorship from 'the Man', whoever he is. I probably by now have some sort of very small readership internationally, from what I used to be able to see with the old counter I had. (There were some hits from Iceland, Japan, Israel, some others ...) But that counter broke down, as you may know. That sucks, but I press on, day by day. Just look at that Archive over to your left: Two years worth of insight and a little funny, and some other stuff not worth mentioning. It has seldom been random or ranting, but I take pride that ... well, someone's gotta be looking at this, right? (I know I am.) But also, whatever I say here will not change much, if really anything. There are millions of blogs out there, too: the probability one finding mine at random is like one in a ... well, a few million, maybe. They're better off buying 50 lotto tickets and selling the house, talking about a good chance ...

Anyway, all you need to know is the following: in a nutshell, I believe that we're all in this together. That is, we all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, etc. Maybe if we all one day acknowledge that fact, we might have some unity, and some peace.

It was fun doing this thing; maybe another year and then I will probably shut it down for good. But not yet. No, not yet.

Another thing: Five days remain until the posting of aforesaid belief list, but I should add that it is quite long, although unfortunately not definitive. If I really wanted to write out what it's in my head you'd never want to read it, probably. It'd fill a library, for God's sakes. And that's not arrogance, either; I'm serious. Again, five more days.

In two weeks, on the eve of the 2nd anniversary of this blog, I will publish what I hope to be a definitive list of my beliefs. (By the way, I had gotten over the flu a week ago; sorry about the confusion, if there was any.)

One week remains until the Iraq election, in which 16 million registered voters will risk life and limb in order to elect their 'transitional' legislative body, from a long list of parties whose names are not known (not to mention any of their platforms). So, uh, good luck. Personally, this does not bode well for either the Iraqi people or us. It looks like we're headed for disaster here, with 20% of the population already effectively nullified (after the Sunni parties pledged to not take part), and a sectarian civil war appearing nearly imminent, as many commentators have noted. I guess we'll have to see, then, but I hope the new government will be recognized as legitimate, and the elections free and fair and not just seen as such. But this, I admit, is a tall order for a country in the middle of war with no real democratic tradition whatsoever. At least we're putting in place a process, so it doesn't matter if only 50,000 people actually vote, right? Of course ...

Bush was coronated with much fanfare and excessive 'security' entailments today. The number of guards was astounding, which formed a thick black line from the aerial view that effectively barred any sort of mass participation. Nonetheless, protests shown through, though marginalized. In his second inaugural speech, Bush in his 17 minutes at the podium did not have the time to mention the war in Iraq or begin to address the serious situation we are in but found the ability to throw in the word 'freedom' 25 times (not counting 'liberty' or 'free'). As many expected, myself included, nice, pretty words to mask uncomfortable if not disturbing realities. One sentence had me almost laugh out loud, in which we are told that our government (or, in his world, 'America') "will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." What? Perhaps it was some, I don't know, transcription error or something: he couldn't of said that, could he? Anyway, it was a speech completely void of meaning and emblematic of the duplicity and opportunistic hypocrisy that we have come to see in the past four years. And (I had thought that I would never have to say this) also for the next four. Having won just about 50.73% of the popular vote, our duly-elected President strides as if he indeed has been given some sort of mandate with which to change the world, and our future. The door is open to the second term. Knock it out the park. Let us get out of your way first ...

Today commemorates the birth of one of the greatest civil rights leaders in our history: Martin Luther King. It is tragic that his words that preached nonviolence appeared to have amounted to little toward that direction, and quite ironic that the rulers at the top take their holiday in his name while doing everything to subvert his dream of peace and tranquility; in particular, their classic divide-and-conquer method that granted them a slim majority in the 2004 election. Was MLK an idealist? I don't know. All that I can hope is that we serve his memory well by pushing for change in this new century that will benefit all, and not benefit some at the expense of all others.

President-elect George W. Bush has said that November's election has shown that the American public has 'ratified' his policies, in particular that which led to our embroiled presence in Iraq. Moreover, according to today's Washington Post, he honestly believes that there is now "no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath."* The first claim is just not true, and the second is sickening and outrageous. Yes, Bush won election with a narrow majority of electorate, but this is not a clear-cut affirmation of his policies. Any serious poll can demonstrate that the majority of the American people have serious reservations, if not tacit opposition to, his domestic policies, and that the majority have turned against the Iraq war. Secondly, what is all this about there being "no reason" to hold the public leaders that sent our soldiers to die without just cause accountable? Holding the government accountable is one of the hallmarks of our democracy, especially when we launch an aggressive war that has effectively crippled the fight against al Qaeda and increased the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention, of course, the 1,350 American and 16,000 Iraqi dead. Alas, no accountability . . .

*Jim VandeHei & Michael A. Fletcher, "Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy," 16 January 2005, A1.