Why not a moat?

Well, I'm back. You perhaps cannot imagine how pleasant it is to escape the news for four days. It was wonderful! I'm certain that important things happened in the last four days, but I don't know anything about them. I don't want to know anything about them. I am happy in my ignorance of the past four days. I am reasonably certain than whatever happened or was said to have happened was basically untrue. I have learned over the past few years that you must simply assume that anything a politician says is a lie, and, of course, the MSM is not even worth watching or reading. So be like me, ignorant and happy (at least temporarily).

The one thing that I am somewhat aware of is the proposal to build ditches around Bagdad. You know that Bagdad is a horribly violent place racked by a (denied) civil war. That is, Sunnis are murdering Shiites, and vice versa, in large numbers. Our troops are also targets probably of both Sunnis and Shiites (as they all rightly want us out of their country). The Kurds are a different problem but perhaps not so much in Bagdad. Now, if you have a problem in the city of Bagdad, a problem that seems to involve mostly residents of that city, how do you go about trying to solve it? Simple, you dig a huge ditch all around the city (some 90 kilometers I read somewhere). Bush, or someone or other suggested that part of this might not be a ditch but, rather, a berm. The point of doing this is to prevent people from entering the city and engaging in violence. But as the violence seems to be being perpetrated mainly by those who already live in the city what is the point of building a huge ditch around the city? I saw somewhere today that the Bush administration now denies they are going to build such a ditch. As I don't believe anything they say I will wait and see.

However, I think it is a terrific idea. But instead of just a mere ditch or berm I think they should build a real honest to goodness moat. You know, like in the days of castles and stuff. A deep ditch filled with water with drawbridges allowing people into and out of the city. Better yet, I suggest they fill the moat with crocodiles. Think of the money and effort that could be saved. Instead of having to handcuff each other and shoot them in the head, they could simply throw them into the moat for the crocodiles. Cheap and efficient. Of course once they exhausted the present inhabitants of the city they would have to let down the drawbridges so they could get some new blood (so to speak).

This ditching idea reminds me of another Republican solution to a problem here at home. Informed that Immigration had discovered a huge underground tunnel for smuggling illegals and narcotics, one Republican asserted, "that's why we need fences." Think about it. I guess in my absence the Republicans voted to add another 700 miles of fencing along our southern borders. Obviously there is no point in doing anything sensible about the problem (like prosecuting businesses that hire illegals). Besides, what huge corporation would miss out on the construction contract for building such a useless white elephant? You have to understand, all this money for the military and such projects as this fence, are not actually meant to do anything to protect us, but, rather, to keep giving our tax dollars to various corporations that in turn finance the Republicans (and unfortunately, Democrats as well). Thus it is we keep on building larger and larger tanks and planes and submarines and bombs and rockets, and utterly useless star wars paraphernalia. This is what is known by anyone with the brains of a clam as the military/industrial/political system (our current form of government).

It's great to be back!