Where Sam doesn't play anymore ...Rick's Cafe Americain

Now, obviously, one has nothing to do with the other, except to illustrate the priorities of those closest to the top of our society.  How much have the “Rangers” and titans of industry who raised over $3 million in 6 days to fund Bush’s inauguration contributed to aid the tsunami victims?

And to compare apples at least to oranges, why is it that we were so quick to pledge billions upon billions to the invasion of a country that posed no threat to us?  Even if you believe that the invasion was worth it to get Saddam out of power because he was such a bad guy, we’ve spent almost $150 billion so far on the Iraqi invasion.  Saddam Hussein may be responsible for the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqis.  The earthquake already has claimed upwards of 50 million thousand lives, and millions more will suffer in the aftermath.  That’s $150,000 per Iraqi killed by Saddam Hussein, as compared to less than $700 per person killed by the tsunamis.

Economic damage is estimated at at least $13 billion.  That’s less than 1% of what Bush wants to spend to “reform” social security.

I’m all for making sure that the Baby Boomers and their kids aren’t someday robbed of their retirement savings decades from now, and everyone likes a good party (others prefer a good war), but wouldn’t the “compassionate” thing to do, given that the aftermath of the earthquake is significantly more “imminent” than was the threat posed by Hussein’s Iraq, be to give, as an initial contribution, at least more than .02% of what we’ve already spent on invading a country based on faulty intelligence?

Perhaps George W. Bush expects the victims of the tsunamis to invest the $35 million towards their retirement.  We need to contribute more, now, and that should be Bush’s number one priority.  Otherwise, I hope he has a nice inauguration while millions of preventable deaths ring in the new year on his watch.

See you in a month.