ok, time to rag on some white people

first, arnold schwarzenegger.

this hypocritical gasbag global-warming visionary was on leno last night going on and on and on about his tireless efforts to lead not only california but the nation into a new age of conservation awareness--seriously, he spent virtually his entire segment on this topic. what he failed to mention (nor, of course, did leno bring up) was the fact that, while he's urging all of us to buy fuel-efficient cars and to carpool, he chooses to make his daily commute all by himself.

on his jet.

yes, folks, since no one in their right minds could possibly expect maria and the kids to give up life in brentwood, our governor commutes from los angeles to sacramento and back every single working day via private jet--but don't worry, he buys "carbon offsets," so that makes it all ok, right?

yeah, right. i swear to god, these global-warming hypocrites just make me wanna claw my brain outta my skull everytime i see one of 'em blathering on about "sacrifice" and "saving the planet." i mean, i can only dream of ever having as lavish a carbon footprint as fucking al gore with his mansion with its $1,500-per-month utility bills (yeah, yeah, he installed some solar panels when news of his excess hit the wires--big fuckin deal).

my point is, if even the most pseudo-passionate of global-warming proponents aren't willing to walk their talk, how can they ever expect joe everyman to do it? seriously--from now on, unless you're ed begley who pedals a stationery bike for half an hour each morning in order to generate sufficient electricity to make his breakfast toast, then get outta my face already about doing my part to combat global fucking warming. because i can almost guarantee you that anybody on tv wagging their finger at me to conserve is using at least 10x our fragile planet's resources that i am.


and now, on to george w. bush

so the other day i see this headline: "white house admits fault on 'mission accomplished banner''

and i think, "well, it's about time--it's not a big one, but at least these assholes are gonna finally own up to something."

but no, we're talking about the bush administration.

what they're "admitting" is that, yeah, they did pay for the banner--but they're still insisting that

". . . the 'Mission Accomplished' phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday.

remember--it took 'em five years to come up with this lame-ass bullshit. up to now, of course, they had denied any involvement in the banner, and now they're telling us they whipped it up and posed bush strategically in front of it after having him symbolically land on the carrier while posing as an actual fighting man in order to congratulate the carrier crew on the completion of its mission? i mean, good god, how stupid do they really think people are?

never mind--that was a stupid question.

oh, and while i'm at it

let's talk about a very interesting thing that barack obaby said recently: he was speculating about where we'd be if we'd taken the two trillion dollars that this idiotic war might ultimately end up costing (i'm not sure exactly where he got that figure but hey, let's go with it) and applied it to all the domestic problems we're facing here at home--and he concluded that for that kinda coin we could fix every highway and bridge in the country, update every school, secure our borders, ports, airports and chemical plants against terrorist attacks and i don't remember what all else.

that got me to thinking, and after pondering for awhile the magnitude of the squandered opportunities of which the good senator spoke, i decided to do a little rough math, as follows:

$2,000,000,000,000 (cost of war) / 3,000,000,000 (americans) = $6,666.67

that's right, folks--if you wanna operate under the assumption that we as americans are individually and collectively responsible for the debts run up by our leaders on our behalf, then if the bill for this sorry war became due and payable tomorrow (a scenario not as far-fetched as you might think, btw), each and every citizen of this country would effectively be on the hook for an amount somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 fucking grand.

now, i've long maintained that if we'd had to conduct this war on a pay-as-you-go basis (or for that matter even had to experience the level of sacrifice endured by americans at home during the second world war), this war would've been a non-starter--and the neocons knew this as well. so they cleverly structured its financing in such a way that payment wouldn't come due for years after they themselves were long gone--i mean, it's easy to generate support for a war among the faithful if it's seemingly not costing 'em anything, right?

the problem is, that's not only an illusion, it's financial malfeasance verging on treason; the bush administration has sold our future down the river for nothing--hell, worse than nothing.

so the next time you come across a war supporter, forget all the usual (i.e., rational) arguments to which the kool-aid drinkers seem oblivious--instead, do the math for them and ask them if they would still feel the same patriotic fervor for "operation iraqi freedom" if they had to cough up their (and their spouse's and kids') share of its cost today.

and then laugh in their face when they lie.