Todd Stadler's blog

[untitled #468]

Yay! Congratulations to my friends Christy and Todd on getting engaged.

[untitled #467]

My ink-jet printer is out of ink again, and I'm reluctant to plunk down the equivalent of a really nice dinner for another cartridge.

Thus do I find myself laughing at Cockeyed's Refilling an Ink Cartridge.

While at Cockeyed.com, why not also consider helping to create the single greatest shopper in the history of mankind? History will thank you.

[untitled #466]

Hmm, I guess it's grass roots, Republican-style.

Try searching for the phrase "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership" on Google, if you haven't already typed that in as part of your search for truth.

You should notice an eerie pattern, and of course links to a bunch of pages like mine talking about these apparently spontaneous synchronicities. (More or less pointed out by Dan)

america's funniest peace rally moments

In the midst of the peace rally, between my concern for the future of America and my reactionary cynicism, I found something to laugh at.

Several people had dressed up their animals and babies in pro-peace paraphernalia such as peace symbols and slogans about the children of Iraq, but one in particular caught my eye.

It was a sign on the back of a dog that said "service dog for peace".

It took me a second to realize that this was not a command.

rallying the anti-troops

Since I guess the government didn't get the memo last time, Julia, I, and tens of thousands of our closest friends attended a rally in downtown Portland this past weekend to protest the seemingly imminent war with Iraq.

And while at some level I'm glad that I went, I have to say that at best, the protest will have little effect on any Bush policy, and it might have done little for me personally besides increase my cynicism.

Of course, when tens of thousands of people gather to protest a war before it happens and the local newspapers effectively yawn, it might be a sign of increased cynicism in general, so maybe it's not just me.

Still, almost from the moment when I first heard a djembe or saw a peace sign raised up idealistically, I wondered if maybe there wasn't a cultural divide between the bulk of the protesters and me.

This was perhaps best exemplified by the abundance of reheated 60s shtick which, while likely warming the hearts of many of the older peaceniks, actually served to stir up thoughts of violence in me towards the people singing "We Shall Overcome" ad nauseam.

I mean, were they planning on singing the song until it was made clear that they had, in fact, overcome? Did they plan on overcoming simply by singing the song until everyone was tired of hearing it?

It began sounding more and more like a threat, this foretold overcoming, and I wished desperately that they would sing "we shall end this song, someday".

I also found myself thinking up altered versions of chants that had once again been dusted off and fit to the current situation:

• One, two, three, four; bet you've heard this chant before
• What do we want? New chants! When do we want them? Now!
• Hey hey kids, what do you say; how many times will we repeat this today?
• Hey hey ho ho; boomer chants have got to go!
• All we are saying, is write some new chants

And so on. I mean, has there been some great dearth in creative left-wingers since 1970 or something such that no one's written a new song or chant?

Similarly juvenile thoughts popped into my head upon seeing many of the signs the protesters carried.

I had tried a few days earlier to think of something I could write on a sign that I would carry to the rally, and came to the conclusion that there is really no useful argument that can be made legible from any significant distance on a standard piece of posterboard.

Oh sure, there are all sorts of clever bumper-sticker-style slogans like "drop Bush, not bombs", and "no blood for oil", but I don't know anyone who actually ponders such phrases besides those who write them.

Maybe I'm just jealous because I couldn't boil my thoughts down to a handful of syllables if I tried.

But who's supposed to care about these signs? Honestly, why tell everyone you're an "acupuncturist for peace"? Does this serve to change the minds of the right-wing alternative medicine practitioners? Or is it just a big middle finger to the establishment as a whole ? AMA and Pentagon combined?

Either way, I found myself pondering what sorts of smart-aleck signs I could bring to some future protest (provided, of course, that this whole Iraq thing doesn't blow over in the coming weeks ha ha).

"Smart folks for peace"? "Mensa members in opposition to the tactical deployment of warheads, nuclear or not, in a pre-emptive fashion"? "Portland Chapter of the Jackie Chan Fan Club for peace"? "Self-referential smart-alecks against war"?

I also considered going for the surrealist vote by completely making up an issue, perhaps with a sign like "dismantle the Troop Cloning Initiative now!" or "android troops are not the solution", but I didn't want to talk to the people who would take me seriously.

Still, such signs would not have been out of place in a rally that sometimes seemed to be little more than a collection of left-wingers and their pet causes.

Okay, you think Bush knew about September 11th before it happened. And sure, you think the government has been sitting on a cheap replacement for gasoline for decades. And yes, let's not forget about the unions. But that's not why tens of thousands of us are gathered here, right?

Not that the organizers of the event seemed to know any better. After a lengthy keynote speech against war with Iraq, thousands of protesters eager to march were disappointed to find out that there were three more speakers, none of whom had anything to say about war or Iraq.

And while I'm thankful I didn't have to listen to the same emotional appeals for peace, I was also pretty sure I didn't show up to, say, protest racial profiling. But, you know, "since all twenty thousand of you are already here ..."

Perhaps most irksome was a lady who went on about how awful Israel is. Now, I'm no big fan of Israel's politics or the amount of money it receives from the United States.

But I'd like to think that for all the words spent telling us how evil Ariel Sharon is, the lady could have spared a sentence or two to agree that not only is Saddam Hussein a bad guy, but he is also probably the worse of the two.

Maybe that's why, during her speech as well as others, a good chunk of the crowd stopped listening and started chanting "march! march! march!" to indicate their desire to stop the yammering and get on with the promised walk through downtown.

Eventually, we did march through the streets, and it was a nice day and the cops were remarkably congenial and sometimes the djembes didn't bother me.

And when my kids ask me what I did before the war, at least I can say I did something. Even if I was cynical.

boxers or briefs?

The secret's out: the best source of comedy, befuddlement, or maybe both is none other than the Whitehouse.gov press briefings.

Narrowly edging out, of course, the official North Korean news agency's Web site.

(What's that you say? The Korean people vow to win in decisive battle against U.S.? And the patriotic youth of Korea, under the leadership of President Kim Il Sung ("the lodestar of the nation", as you may remember) "rendered distinguished services shining in the history of the nation"? Gosh, why does that language sound so familiar?)

But I digress.

From the January 9, 2003 White House press briefing:

Q: The President used the phrase, class warfare, again today, alluding to criticism of his tax plan. Why is it class warfare to point out that the overwhelming majority of the tax cut would go to the wealthiest people in the country?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll tell you, it's class warfare to say that there are wrong people in America and these wrong people are not deserving of tax relief. The President doesn't look at the American people and say, I'm from the government, I know who the right people are ... I'm from the government, I know who the wrong people are. The President believes that's a divisive approach, and the President seeks an approach that unifies people. And that's why he wants to work closely with members of Congress, just as he did in 2001, to try to arrive at an agreement so taxes can be cut. And he will fight for the plan that he proposed.

Q: Does that mean that anybody who disagrees with him is having a divisive approach?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there's a ... there are ways of disagreeing. But to say that there are wrong people is certainly a divisive approach.

Clever, that. The only wrong people are those who say there are wrong people. And, as we see below, those who say that the benefits will go to the wealthy.

Q: Specifically, is it considered class warfare to point out that most of the tax cut benefits go to the wealthy, as opposed to the less wealthy? And can you give us what the President considers a working definition of what class warfare is?

MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, it's inaccurate to say that the benefits will go to the wealthy.

Q: Regardless of whether it's accurate or inaccurate, if you think it is, is it class warfare to point that out?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's inaccurate. And because it's inaccurate, it is used in the political lexicon as a way to divide and to play class warfare in an effort to portray some Americans as unworthy of tax relief and other Americans as worthy of tax relief based on their class. That is class warfare, in the President's judgment.

Q: So someone who legitimately feels that way, they may be mistaken, but you're saying they're not mistaken, they're using it for their own political purpose?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President defines it as class warfare, yes.

So, um, the president wants to unify people, like say, me and a billionaire. And he'll do that by, um, implementing a plan that, how's that go again, will cut a nice chunk out of the taxes that the billionaire pays. And he'll give me diddly-squat. Unity!

Except that Ari points out that it's inaccurate to say that the benefits will go to the wealthy, even if poor people don't tend to own lots of stock (a little known fact outside the beltway, I suppose).

Of course, the president doesn't want to say that any person or group of persons is unworthy of tax relief, so what he's cleverly done is propose a bill that would say that only people with dividend-bearing stocks and other (mostly family-related) qualifications are worthy of tax relief.

Which, you know, tends to come across to normal folk like myself as something like "Dear Todd, I'm from the government, and I know that you are unworthy of a tax break because the stock you own pays crap for dividends and you don't have a family," even though it's obvious President Bush is apparently saying the exact opposite of that, or something.

It's enough to make one hope that Bush will declare war on class warfare, and that we'll eventually start detaining people offshore for secret military tribunals when they mention that the middle class never gets the good tax breaks or whatever. Spit.

Here's a nugget of wisdom from the January 13, 2003 press briefing:

MR. FLEISCHER: The American people are the least willing people in the world to go to war. The American people are also people who understand the need to protect ourselves from an enemy that has weapons that may seek to use them again, particularly after what we went through on September 11th. And this is what the President has to weigh, is when it reaches a tipping point in his judgment that the price of inaction is greater than the price of action; the risks of doing nothing will lead to another attack on the United States. These are the difficult judgments the President of the United States has to make. He has not yet made them.

Sure, sure, we in America sure hate war. I mean, the majority of us approve of sending our kids off to die for some secret reason in Iraq and all, but you know, we're not happy about it or whatever.

But hold on a second. Did Ari mention September 11th? Did he say "an enemy that has weapons that may seek to use them again, particularly after what we went through on September 11th" or was it just me and my emphasis?

Um, pop quiz time. Who attacked us on September 11th? When was the first time Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Americans that they could use them "again"? Or is someone cleverly confusing Iraq and al Qaeda and all those foreigners over there who talk about Allah ... you know the ones?

More from the same briefing:

Q: All right, and the second question ... we've seen then Governor Bush's record on death penalty cases in Texas. What is his stand on what Governor Ryan has done?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that these are matters that states review under the state laws. He has made no specific comment about what Illinois has done in this case. The President believes in, just as he said when he was governor of Texas, he didn't think it was the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states how they should have their own laws be administered.

...

Q: But under this most recent situation, there's a lot of controversy with it. Does he at least believe there needs to be some kind of study before other states take this kind of action that Governor Ryan has taken?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not tell states how to conduct their business. These are individual judgments that the elected officials in these sovereign 50 states are paid to make on the basis of information on how their state systems are run. It is not the federal system, these are 50 different state systems.

Ha ha. Ho ho. Bush and states' rights. Good one.

From the January 14, 2003 press briefing:

Q: Why do you go so far out of your way to say that the burden is not on the inspectors? I mean, does the President think that the inspectors are doing any good? Does he care what they say or what they conclude? Or does he simply believe either Saddam Hussein puts up or shuts up and the U.S. gets ready to go to war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, the President thinks that they're doing good, and that's why he wanted them to go there. But the fact of the matter is if Saddam Hussein is hiding his weapons from them, it makes it very hard for them to fulfill their mission. And this is why the inspectors will be the first to tell you, if Iraq fails to cooperate, it makes their mission very, very difficult to prove whether Saddam Hussein does or does not have the so-called smoking gun. Because smoking guns, as we know, can be hidden.

Q: Well, then, what is the United States doing specifically to help them do a good job? What's the evidence of that good job that they're doing, and what specifically is Saddam Hussein holding out on?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the question is Saddam Hussein has had a history of failing to cooperate with the inspectors. He has the ability and the means to hide the weapons that he has developed and that he is developing. I think the declaration that he made is proof positive that he has withheld information about his weapons of mass destruction program, programs that these previous inspectors said were there when they were forced out of the country in 1998. And now Saddam Hussein still has failed to account for the weapons that's there. And these are statements that come from Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei about what is ... the gaps that are in the declaration.

Q: What help are giving, if we know about all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Dr. Blix said yesterday, that he is satisfied with the help that he has been getting from the United States government.

Q: But Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei are the experts. They're the ... that's why they're there. They're the experts. They say they need months to get that proof positive, to get the answer to the question. Why does the President think he knows better?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has made plain that the burden does not fall on the inspectors; the burden falls on Saddam Hussein to comply with the inspectors. And that's the judgment of the President, having judged Iraq's past behavior, their ability to fool the inspectors, to deceive the inspectors, to hide things from the inspectors, and Saddam Hussein's motives, moving forward, in terms of whether he has indeed changed and is at this time cooperating. The President has seen no proof that this time he is complying and willing to disarm.

Q: But the inspectors aren't saying they're being fooled, they're being duped. Does the President think that he knows better than they do as to how effective their work can be?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the inspectors have raised a number of concerns that they have, and they have said they don't believe they're getting full cooperation and compliance from Saddam Hussein. They have found problems that they have cited. And the President is content to let them continue in their work, of course. And the President is looking forward to the January 27th date. He believes it will be an important date. And as I said yesterday, the President hasn't put a specific date on when he believes the inspections will come to some type of conclusion or not. But the President's message is clear to Saddam Hussein, that he needs to comply.

Q: It's not up to the inspectors to judge how effective their own work is and can be; it's up to the President to say if their work is over ...

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's something that we're going to continue to work together on.

Q: But it seems like you've already decided.

MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.

Q: Everything you say makes it suggest that you've already decided that the answer is that they haven't cooperated.

MR. FLEISCHER: But they haven't cooperated.

Q: No matter what the inspectors say?

MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.

Q: No matter what.

I just like how that devolves from pointed discussion into "I'm not going to talk to you anymore." Like two lovers fighting. Very dramatic. I bet you'll see that almost word-for-word in an upcoming West Wing episode.

And finally, from the January 15, 2003 press briefing:

Q: One more on the topic of race. Does the President consider racial diversity a plus when it comes to hiring people within the White House or within the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I defer on all questions until you see the President's ...

Q: You can't defer something that has nothing to do with this case.

MR. FLEISCHER: I just did.

Q: Wait a second, Ari. I don't think ... I think people expect to have that question answered when it comes to hiring practices at the White House. It doesn't relate to college admissions. I'm asking you whether he believes ...

MR. FLEISCHER: In the obvious context of what is about to happen and is pending, in terms of you being able to hear from the President about this ...

Q: It has nothing to do with the case. It's an issue. Has anybody within the White House ever said that it was a plus, that racial diversity was a plus within the White House when it came to hiring, or within the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: April.

Whoops. Ari's regular "answer a different question in the guise of the one that was just asked" routine didn't work, nor did his secondary "defer to some upcoming statement by somebody else" shtick. Fortunately, his ultimate line of defense, the "ignore the petulant journalist and find someone with a nicer question" bit never fails.

surreality programming

If you ask me, this whole reality TV thing has gotten way out of control.

I mean, it's all good and well that Peter Funt is riding his father Alan's coattails by showing us all the humor inherent in phony extra airport security measures (ha ha ha, kids, but don't try it yourself or you'll end up in airport jail).

But when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that the failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction "could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," you suddenly realize that, okay, it's all a joke, then, and George Bush isn't really the president, and okay, now this all makes sense, and where are all the hidden cameras, oh there they are, all over the malls and traffic signals and supermarkets and elevators and dressing rooms and sure, that's funny, but please stop the joke I want to know who the real president is and stop it please stop it this isn't funny anymore please please stop.

Ahem.

I mean, if this isn't all a joke, then why am I laughing so very very hard? Oh wait, I'm crying.

But enough about me. This has never been about me.

This has always been about tracking down and finding Osama bin Laden.

I'm sorry, about stopping the terrorist network that bin Laden led.

Check that, I mean about bringing peace and freedom to the country terrorized by the organization that was friendly to the network that bin Laden led.

No, scratch all that. This has always been about Iraq. Iraq has always been the problem here.

We have always been at war with Iraq. Ever since they uh ... um ... did that thing they did that made us realize that we should go to war with them. Again. Or once again have remained at war with them. Iraq. Ahem.

Look, I'm no fool. I realize Iraq's run by a truly despicable tyrant with a history for terrorizing his neighbors. And I'd be more than happy if Saddam Hussein left or was forced out of office.

But I'm not sure that's our job. After all, I'd be more than happy if Bush left or was forced out of office, too, but you don't see me massing a quarter of a million troops on the Whitehouse lawn and saying "oh, but I don't have a timetable for using them!"

I have yet to find anybody who can tell me why why oh please just answer the question why we ever started focusing on Iraq.

Okay, anybody who wants us to go to war, that is. Those who don't want us to go to war have lots of reasons ? Bush has a personal vendetta against Saddam ("he tried to kill my dad, you know"), Bush is trying to distract us from our failure in Afghanistan, Bush is trying to control the country with the second largest known oil reserves, etc.

Of course, I'd like to think that the burden of proof for why we should make war on Iraq lies not with the peaceniks but with those whose plan, you know, involves billions of dollars of spending and thousands (or more) of dead people, no small chunk of which will likely be your friends and neighbors in the military.

But the best I've gotten so far is that there exists some secret evidence that the administration can't tell us about but which neatly explains everything.

Including, one supposes, the existence of an illegal weapons program and maybe what really happened to the Mayans.

But the story is that Iraq has illegal weapons. So we advocate for weapons inspectors to be sent in to prove that they have illegal weapons, all the while touting that the burden is on Iraq to prove that they don't have illegal weapons.

And then, when Iraq fails to prove that they don't have weapons (never mind that we thus far have failed to prove that they do), we say it doesn't matter anyhow, because we already know that they do ha ha it was all a dirty trick.

How do we know? Why, our deus ex machina secret evidence tells us so! Oh, but you can't see it. It's secret.

So eventually we'll go to war and we'll bomb the expletive out of them, but not without sending some, what, several hundred or thousand Americans to die along with them, of course.

And when a mother, stricken with grief because her son has died while serving in Gulf War II, cries out, "Why? Why? Why did my son have to die?" is the government going to say, "We could tell you, but we'd have to kill you. Sorry about your son and all"?!

Or maybe those whose sons and husbands and fathers died get to be let in on the secret, hmm? What a special treat.

You know, when I get all worked up like I clearly am now, I find solace in just one place, and that is the White House press briefings page.

Though it may contain many ideas which make me want to explode, at least I can point to it and say, "here is some apparently unfiltered information that President Bush actually wants to share with me," although, of course, it is all very filtered, through the lips of Grima, I mean Ari Fleischer.

Let us marvel together at the transcript of a recent press briefing, shall we?

Q: Can we presume that the President is very happy that Mr. Blix says there is no smoking gun in the search for weapons in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the problem with guns that are hidden is you can't see their smoke. And so we will still await to see what the inspectors find in Iraq and what events in Iraq lead to. The report that we understand was conveyed in the meeting up in New York this morning said that the work of the inspectors is still underway, they continue to gather information. And the report also cited a number of concerns and a number of problems in what Iraq has been doing.

Q: But it wouldn't be disappointing, would it, if there were no weapons there?

MR. FLEISCHER: We know for a fact that there are weapons there. And so ? the inspectors also went on ?

Q: What's the search all about if you know it so factually?

I'd like to think that Ari Fleischer has fundamentally altered the way English speakers think about their idioms involving smoking guns. It's not that we're looking for the smoke coming from the gun that shot somebody ? no no no!

The guns are hidden, and so is the smoke! And for that matter, nobody's been shot! Of course. So, um, what are we doing again?

Q: The heart of the problem is there is a lack of confidence in anybody speaking the truth there, isn't that ...

MR. FLEISCHER: Are you accusing the inspectors of not speaking the truth when they say that it's not assured?

Q: No, I think they're speaking the truth, and the country won't accept it.

MR. FLEISCHER: So when they say the absence of the particular item is not assured, you accept that as the truth. You agree with the President. I'm very proud.

Q: I mean, the point is, wouldn't you be happy if there were no weapons there?

MR. FLEISCHER: There would be nothing that would make the President happier than there being no weapons in Iraq. And the best way to make certain that there are no weapons in Iraq is for Saddam Hussein to disarm himself of the weapons he has.

Wow! My head's spinning! Along those lines, the best way to prove that there is no God is to have God come down and tell us he does not exist. Ipso facto, presto change-o.

I conclude this entry with a fun application you can try at home.

1. First, you have to get yourself beat up by someone (we'll call him Person A) who doesn't like you. I leave this to your clevertude.
2. Next, find a person (Person B), who also doesn't like you, and who knows Person A, but isn't noticeably good friends with him.
3. Walk up to Person B and tell him that you heard he was going to throw a rock at you.
4. Ignore any taunts he makes about the black eye you got from Person A and internalize them as proof that he is in cahoots with Person A.
5. When Person B protests that he wasn't planning on hitting you with a rock, ask him why he has a rock in his back pocket.
6. When he protests that he doesn't have a rock in his back pocket, tell him that he won't then mind if you stick your hands in his pockets.
7. When he tells you to get the freak out of his pants, take him to the police station and inform them of Person B's plan to hit you with a rock, and suggest that they look in his pants pockets for proof.
8. When the police find no rock, wonder to yourself if they are also not in cahoots with Persons A and B.
9. Then declare to the police and Person B that it doesn't matter if a rock cannot be found on Person B's person, as rocks are very easy to hide, and the mere fact that Person B has not produced a rock (as evidence of his plan to hit you with same) proves that Person B is hiding the rock he plans to hit you with.
10. While they are still trying to process your logic, pounce upon Person B and punch the living snot out of him.
11. As the police are hauling you off to a jail cell, explain that it was all an object lesson, and ask if they realize that they're being used as tools of The Man.

[untitled #465]

For those of you who are into irony and all that Gen-X stuff, may I recommend the following Web page, entitled Professional Web Designs?

I'll let you find the irony for yourself, if it doesn't crash your computer first.

[untitled #464]

If you haven't read the story on Slate about how the press gullibly bought the Raelians/Clonaid story, may I suggest you do so? It's clever. (Thanks, Dan)

everything old is nuclear

You know what? I really love retro! I just can't get enough of all that old stuff!

I know that saying that may brand me as "square" and "wack" (these terms themselves are retro ? I can't stop!), but sometimes I like to take a break from all that newfangled stuff and relish the good old days.

That's why I was so happy to see the recent Grammy nominations, specifically those for best male rock vocal performance.

Looking at the list of nominees ? David Bowie, Elvis Costello, Peter Gabriel, Robert Plant, and Bruce Springsteen ? one can't help but notice that someone in the Recording Academy loves old music, too. Radical!

I mean, let's face it, rock has only gotten worse since we were young.

Which doesn't explain why Lenny Kravitz has won the best male rock vocal Grammy for the last four years in a row, given that he's no Don Henley or Eric Clapton in terms of rock.

But in today's topsy-turvy world, there are more important things than rock or roll, such as who exactly it is we're going to bomb the crap out of in the coming months.

Fortunately, if there's anyone who's a bigger retro fan than me, it's our president, George Bush.

I mean, we already had a George Bush presidency, so his being president is like some sort of magical time warp for all us retro fans. It's enough to make me want to coin a term like "pretrosidency", but that doesn't really work, you know?

Anyhow, check this out: Bush is such a retro fan that his cabinet is chock full of political blasts from the past such as Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Anthony Principi, Andrew Card, and Dick Cheney. It's like some sort of Circus of the Political Stars, but twenty years later! Awesome!

Which, of itself, isn't enough to earn Bush a True Retro-Lover^TM's membership card. Lots of politicians are as averse to new people as they are to new ideas.

But what really pushes Bush into the inner circle of ?ber-retrophilia is his saber rattling of late.

Not only are we currently embroiled in disputes with two countries we've already been at war with (and while I can't say I was really impressed with the Gulf War, I'm so psyched about having a Korean War II, because that almost definitely means M*A*S*H II), but Bush has gone so far as to bring the spectre of nuclear war back into our lives.

Sure, like most people, I'm totally psyched about the possibility of pre-emptively nuking the crap out of Iraq. (I mean, remember how cool those "daisy cutter" bombs were in Aghanistan? Kaboom! Well, think, like, a thousand times more kaboom than that!)

But as a retrophile, I'm not so concerned about the future as reliving the past.

And one of my favorite memories of the past was fearing nuclear war. I remember seeing on the TV news that the USSR and the USA were always tense, threatening each other like in a Charles Bronson flick or something. Tubular!

Some nights, I would look out my window at the Braniff airplanes flying overhead and worry that they were actually nuclear missiles coming to destroy my hometown.

I treasure those memories, which is why I'm so psyched that Bush is committed to bringing them back to reality! It's enough to make me wet my parachute pants!

I can only hope that Sting (who also deserves to win a Grammy because I really loved The Police) will rewrite his gnarly hit "The Russians" for this new era, just like Elton John did for that song about Marilyn Monroe. If you think about it, there was all sorts of great music that dealt with nuclear war.

So in lots of ways, this is shaping up to be a great decade. The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades, as they say.