I'm In It
To Win It
I am throwing my hat into the ring – well, two rings, actually. I entering the running for both President of the United states and as the “real father” of the late Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter.
Now it might strike some of you as odd for a candidate for such an important post, that of parent, to simultaneously seek the Presidency. I want you to know, I understand your concern. The Presidency exposes children to situations and people that would be blocked by your TV set's V-chip. But you have to go through life with the President you have, not the President you wish you had. And, if granted custody, and if elected, I pledge to monitor this child's exposure to any intern-related activities during my term in office.
More on the Presidency later. But by you are probably wondering how I, a simple blogger living in rural northern California, could be the father of Anna Nichole Smith's baby. My wife was wondering the same thing. So, let me explain. It's simple. That kid is a $500 million lottery ticket, but the odds (of being granted custody as her father) are far better than lotto odds.
So you do the math: There are roughly 300 million people in the US. Half of them are male. I figure about half those males are either too old, too young, too sick or too gay to be in the running to be that kid's daddy. That gives me a one in 75 million chance to be chosen. Since you can't win if you don't enter, I'm in it to win it.
Did Anna and I have an affair? As I explained to my wife, that's just ridiculous. I never met the woman and, as far I as I know, never even shared the same dimension, much less the same room, with her. (Besides, silicone makes me break out.)
So why do I think I'm even in the running as a DNA match? Simple. Remember “If the glove don't fit, you gotta acquit?” Yeah, the O.J trial. Prosecutors had buckets full of OJ's DNA and they still lost the case. Because the DA only had DNA. OJ had Johnny Cochran. Get me a lawyer like that and twelve morons on the jury and I don't care what the DNA evidence says, I'll walk out of court with that $500 million bambino under my arm.
I already raised kids, who are now grown and gone. So why would I want to put myself through all that again? Because then I'd have the money I need to become competitive in the Presidential race. This race is going to be the most expensive in history. Some are saying it could be the first billion-dollar contest. Hillary already has nearly $12 million salted away, for example. That's what I will be up against. And the day I get my name of that kid's birth certificate I become numero uno in the money race.
I understand that it might strike some of you as insensitive, opportunistic, even smarmy, to fund my campaign in such a cynical and underhanded manner. I want you to know that I feel your nausea. But look at the alternatives I faced. I could put out a list of things I would do, if elected, for special interest groups in return for contributions. Or I could offer to be against new environmental restrictions if Exxon coughed up a million or two. I could tell the Christian right I could be persuaded to agree we shouldn't give young girls that new vaccine that prevents cervical cancer -- if they passed the donation basket among their God-fearin' brethren. Hell, if they raise a few mil extra I might even be persuaded to make abortion illegal.
I could have, except the large field of candidates, from both parties, who have already announced, have already picked most of that low-hanging fruit.
So, you see, I gotta go with the kid. I see it as a win/win. First, it's a good deal for the kid. We'll take the little bugger with us when we move into the White House. Every Christmas we'll tie a webcam around her neck and you can watch her crawl around the White House.
I will also dedicate a statue in Statuary Hall in the Capitol building, enshrining Smith as the first bimbo in American history to give her life for her country. I will delcare all dumb-blond jokes a form of hate speech. And I will order that Smith's remains be buried next to those of Betsy Ross.
Second it's good for you, the voter. Because you will finally have a President in the White House who can honestly say, he got to the Oval Office without having to screw anyone.
At this point I am holding off formally announcing my candidacy. Today I am just announcing one of those phony-baloney exploratory committees. I will not formally announce my candidacy for President until I'm granted custody of little Miss whats-her-name. (We'll be renaming her, of course –been toying with “Annie Nicole Pizzo.” But then again, I might have to sell the naming rights --- something like “Cingular iPod Pizzo” or “Hallibuton Northrop” Pizzo.” Since I will probably have to burn through most of the kid's trust fund running for office, she's going to need that extra money for college.)
By now you are probably wondering why I think I have the qualities to be President of the United States. It's a fair question that deserves a frank answer. First, clearly I love children, Second, thanks to that little money-honey, I won't have to stoop to pre-selling my loyalty to a handful of special interest groups – (except of course for that little name-selling rights business. But, hey, that's for the kid. There will be no child left
behind in a Pizzo administration!)
Feb. 12, 2007
Of course we see this most when the issue of Iraq comes up. Those on the far right believe that “if we don't fight them there, we will have to fight them here, in our own streets.” That's complete and utter nonsense, of course, but believe me, they believe it.
I got a taste of lefty anger last week when I had the audacity to suggest that Iran may be doing to the US in Iraq exactly what the US did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Specifically by making sure Iraqi insurgents have the gear they need to blow up our armor vehicles and shoot down our helicopters.
Yep. I said that, and oh my! The emails poured in. How dare I!.
How dare I what?
Well, how dare I provide aid and comfort to the war-mongering Bushies! “That's just what they want us to believe,” the lefties whined. They want us to believe the Iranians are supplying Iraqi insurgents, to justify attacking Iran. And I fell right into that right-wing trap.
Ah, no, not right -- and not left either. Both sides are missing the point. One side sees black, the other sees white. I see gray.
Let's dissect the matter:
Answer: Does a bear crap in the woods? Sure they do. Fueled by Neocons and Israeli interests in Congress (can you spell Lieberman?) they'd love to bomb the crap out of Iran. Just as they believed attacking Iraq would yield longterm benefits for the region, they now believe that knee-capping Iran now would end Iran's regional ambitions.
Question: Well, are they right?
Answer: No. Attacking Iran would not only not yield any benefits but would simply kick open another Pandora's box of very ugly realities. And then we'll be talking about how to “get out of Iran,” too. Because, you see, the Iranians live there. And they will still live there long after the dust kicked up by westerners settles. Iran's place in the Middle East of the future can only be decided by themselves and their neighbors. Anyone who believes the West can force such an outcome clearly has no grasp whatsoever of the history of that region, the religion & culture that underpins everything, or the people that live there.
Question: Are the Iranians supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents?
Answer: Duh! Lefties need to understand that, just because Bush says it, does not automatically mean it's not true. Even a broken clock is right twice each day.
Imagine it this way. What if you woke up one morning and discovered that Iran had bombed, invaded and occupied Mexico. Iranian troops were stationed along the US Mexican border and the President of Iran was making threats against the US. Do you think, just maybe, the CIA would be slipping guns-n-stuff to anti-Iranian Mexican insurgents? Of course they would. So, of course the Iranians are. The sooner the US can be convinced to leave Iraq the better for Iran. And the fastest way to do that is for Iran to play the same role in Iraq that the US played in forcing the Soviets to quit their occupation of Afghanistan. And that's precisely what the Iranians are doing.
Question: So, does that mean the US should attack Iran?
Answer: Of course not. Attacking Iran would be no more justified than if the Soviets had attacked the US for providing helicopter killing Stinger missiles to Afghan insurgents.
Question: So what is the right response to Iran's behavior?
Answer: That question brings me back to the first question and answer – that only Iran's neighbors can affect Iran's behavior. We saw the first indications of just how that would work last week. It may have appeared to those wearing political blinders to have been an unrelated matter. But in fact it was arguably the most important thing that happened in the region this month – or, for that matter, any month lately.
It happened, not in poor beleaguered Iraq, or Mulah-run Iran, but in filthy-rich Saudi Arabia.
Last week the Saudis, not exactly known for making bold diplomatic moves, suddenly reached down into Palestine, grabbed waring Fatah and Hamas leaders by the scurfs of their necks and dragged them to Mecca for a sit-down.
The Saudis have had a good thing going for nearly century, selling their oil to the West. But they realized that the growing tide of instability around them – some of which they had financed -- is getting out of hand. Sunni and Shia are increasingly facing off in what many believe may be the beginning of a regional civil war,. And kind of regional instability would directly threaten the Saudis sweet (crude) deal.
So, after years of looking the other way and paying protection money to radical, anti-Israel groups, the Saudis decided it was time had come to send the dogs of war to obedience school.
First of all, the Saudis have far more reasons to fear Iran than the US does. And it would not be the first time in recent history that Iran and Syria made trouble in Palestine that resulted in regional misery. Finally, Hamas gets its money and arms from Iran, and it has been Hamas fanning the flames of a Palestinian civil war.
I have no idea what the Saudis actually told the two waring factions, but I bet it went something like this:
The Saudis to Hamas leaders: “You guys have had it pretty easy. Iran sends you what you need when you need it. Meanwhile the West has embargoed the Palestinian government since Hamas won elections. That cut off western aid to Fatah, making them easy pickings for your Iranian-armed Hamas fighters. We Saudis can, if we must, provide Fatah with all the money and arms it needs. Is that what you want? A full out civil war with a well-equipped and financed Fatah? Because that's what you're going to get unless you knock it off.”
The Saudis to Fatah leaders: “How was that?”
Fatah to the Saudis: “Perfect.”
Hamas to the Saudis: “You Saudi Sunni swine! Allah will eat your children, kill your crops, dry up your oil and render your wives and camels barren."
Saudis to Hamas: “Whatever. Take it or leave it.”
The photo-op that followed the Saudis sit-down showed Fatah and Hamas leaders kissing. The next move will be Iran's. Do they keep egging Hamas on to undermine any form of secular, moderate Palestinian government? Or do the Iranians back off? That ball is not in Iran's court. The Saudis have more oil and more money than Iran. And the Saudis have warehouses full of modern US-military gear. Should the Saudis decide to back Fatah they could turn it into a formidable force. (And this time the Israelis would approve – maybe even help.)
What's really important to learn from that event is this: It was the Saudis, not the American fleet, that changed the equation for Iran -- and in ways the Bush administration could only dream of.
It's a valuable lesson, for everyone involved. The west's only strategic interest in the region is oil. But those who actually live in the Middle East have much broader and far more personal interests at stake. For the peoples of the Middle East it boils down to a stark choice: peaceful co-existence, growing trade and growing economies, or life on-end in a Mad Max world.
Only once the West, particularly the US, butts out will that choice come into high relief. The Saudis clearly get it – at least those Saudis who benefit most from regional stability. (Eventually ordinary Saudis will get it too, and that won't be good news for the corrupt phony “princes,” now running that sandpit of a country. Of course, when that day arrives, the US will not like that particular display of “democracy ” in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, it will be a matter for locals to decide, not Exxon.)
- Is Iran sending military assistance and anti-aircraft missiles to Iraqi insurgents? Almost certainly.
- Is the Bush administration lying to us again? Almost certainly.
- Does that mean Iran is not sending military assistance to Iraqi Insurgents? No.
- Does that mean we should attack Iran? No.
No longer able to blame the Great Satan they will have to “get” what the Saudis got. The choice facing Muslims in the Middle East is between life in dark ages, or peace, cooperation and progress.
Take it or leave it.
Then they hurriedly handed all that cash over to a handful of Iraqi Charlie Keatings. And guess what? Most of it disappeared into the worm-woodwork. (The total cash shipments to Iraq came to $12B and "they can’t find" $8.8B.)
That would be the same week we are learning, thanks to the Scooter Libby trial, just how much VP Cheney and others in the administration were lying and covering up the lying about the real state of Saddam's non-existent nuclear program.
And it's the same week that the Pentagon's own inspector general released his findings that Rumsfeld's own No. 2, Douglas Feith, had spent his pre-war days making up stuff about Saddam's non-existent links to al Qaida.
WASHINGTON Feb 9, 2007 (AP)— Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday....Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies. (More
But no, they had bigger fish to fry:
Critics charge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is abusing the perks of power by asking for a jumbo military jet with sleeping accommodations for her flights across the country. (More)
Of course, the story was completely false. It turned out that the House Sergeant-at-Arms, Bill Livingood – who was appointed by former GOP House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, actually was the person that requested the military provide a plane large enough so Pelosi could fly nonstop to the West Coast.
Was Livingood just looking out for his new bosses security, or was he setting her up? I can't say. But it was his request, not Pelosi's that set the new Dem Speaker up for a thorough Swift-boating by GOP brown shirts.
But, unlike John Kerry, Pelosi didn't let the story churn long unchallenged. The role played by GOP-holdover, Livingood was put right out there. Now she needs to go a step further. She needs to find out who at the Pentagon took Livingood's lob over the plate and slammed it into far right field.
As Democrats learned from Kerry's swift-boating, the only way to deal with a lie is to promptly and unceremoniously cram it straight down the throats of the liars. Now that the swift-planers have been exposed, Dems need to teach them a lesson. They need to go to the floor of the House and read back the words of every one of those GOP representative who took the floor this week to repeat the lie. Then Democrats need to demand each of them retract their remarks and apologize.
Then make it clear to the GOP bully boys that Democrats are going to do just that every time they try to pull one of these swift-boat stunts in the future. The message needs to be clear and convincing: You get no more free swings at Democrats. And before you swing next time, you damn well better have your facts in line, because we are going to demand to see them.
Former US Marine, Rep. John Murtha understands the value of firing back. The ink wasn't dry on the Washington Times swift-plane story before Murtha announced he was going to hold hearings on just that subject – how members of Congress and the administration have been using – and misusing – the fleet of Pentagon jetliners. The next sound you heard after Murtha's threat was the sound of 200 GOP assholes slamming shut.
Oh, and then there's this. Since GOP members of the Senate seem determined to block any vote or debate on Bush's so-called “surge” of new troops into Iraq, they might want to use that time instead to hold hearings on this instead:
February 8, 2007 : President Bush's uncle William H.T. Bush was among a group of directors of a defense contractor who reaped $6 million from what federal regulators say was an illegal five-year scheme by two company executives to manipulate the timing of stock option grants, documents show. Bush, known as "Bucky," becomes the second member of the president's family to become enmeshed in the stock options scandal this month.
Hey, no “cut and runners” among the Bush clan! They're in Iraq for the duration. A surge in troops means a surge in defense spending as well. Let the good times roll. A rising tide of blood raises all yachts.
This time around GOP brown shirts are going to have much tougher muck to hoe. As I noted at the top, the list of GOP/administration failures, lies, deficits, deceits and corruption is so long, so documented and so handy, that Democrats have plenty of ammo.
So, at the bottom it's really just about glass and rocks. On the right we have the GOP, holed up in the biggest glass-house since Teapot Dome, throwing rocks at anyone that crosses them. On the left we have Democrats, well armed but legendary for their glass jaw. Unless Democrats quickly and robustly return fire on these GOP's bully boys, it's their glass jaw that'll end up busted – again.
So, on guard. The attempted swift-plane-ing of Pelosi is just the beginning.
Oh no. It's a F.....g ...
"Come in Ranger One. Ranger One do you Copy?
Hmmm, I thought to myself, after all the bad news out of Iraq in recent months, this felt different... yet the same. It felt important too, more important than the usual news about roadside bombs and Iraqis using electric drills to make holes in their neighbors before beheading them. This bit of news caught my attention in a different, yet familiar way.
But why? Why did it feel different, yet somehow the same? And why did I feel this bit of news marked a new, and final, turning point?
So I did a bit of research, and lo and behold look what I found. Deja vu-city! We really have been here and done this before. Well not “us” literally, but someone that acted like we are acting now. Here, read this and I'll rejoin you at the other end:
The Soviet Army was unfamiliar with such fighting, had no counter-insurgency training, and their weaponry and military equipment, particularly armored cars and tanks, were sometimes ineffective or vulnerable in the mountainous environment.
The Soviets used helicopters as their primary air attack force, supported with fighter-bombers and bombers, ground troops and special forces. Of particular significance was the donation of American-made FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, which increased aircraft losses of the Soviet Air Force.
The inability of the Soviet Union to break the military stalemate, gain a significant number of Afghan supporters and affiliates, or to rebuild the Afghan Army, required the increasing direct use of its own forces to fight the rebels. Soviet soldiers often found themselves fighting against civilians due to the elusive tactics of the rebels. They did repeat many of the American Vietnam mistakes, winning almost all of the conventional battles, but failing to control the countryside. (More)
Yep. And instructive as hell, since we know how that superpowers attempt to straighten out a Muslim nation by force ended.
But it's not just that, it's not that it ended in failure, but precisely what it was that ended it. What ended it were Stinger shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles, (“Manpads”) secretly supplied to the Mujahideen by the US.
“Its long range and sophisticated guidance made the Stinger highly effective against Soviet airplanes and helicopters, and Stingers were credited with turning the tide of the war in the Mujahideen's favor, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. (More)
In all the Soviets lost over 130 helicopters and other aircraft to these deadly accurate little missiles.
(See list here)
While George W. Bush may not be a fan of history, some folks are. Apparently among those history buffs are the Iranians. They took note of what it was that caused the once powerful Soviets to cut and run out of Afghanistan.
Which brings me back to why I think that bit of news this morning marks the beginning of the end for the US occupation of Iraq – and why we've suddenly lost five helicopters in less than three weeks. Because, you see, the Iranians have their own versions of the Stinger, and they are providing them to anti-US insurgents in Iraq.
(See also Anza are a series of Chinese developed, IR-guided shoulder-fired surface to air missiles, under licensed production in Pakistan.
That's why this is feels different, yet the same – different superpower, same solution.
It's not --- no pun intended -- rocket science. All you have to do is ask yourself this: What was the only tactical advantage the Soviets had over the Mujahideen?
Answer: Air power.
Except for the lack of air power, the Mujahideen held every other tactical advantage. First, they lived there, while the Russians were just heavily armed visitors. Also, they knew the terrain like the backs of their little brown hands, while Soviet troops were, quite literally, lost much of the time.
Back then the US clearly understood that air-power was the Soviet Achilles heel in Afghanistan. Which is precisely why we slipped the Mujahideen a couple a hundred Stinger missiles. Once the Soviets lost their air power advantage, they lost the war.
Today US forces in Iraq are in the same sinking boat the Soviets found themselves in 25 years ago. We can't move our forces safely or quickly on the ground, so we move them by helicopter. And, when Iraqi troops get their asses in a sling – (which appears to be whenever anyone shoots back at them.) – they call in US air support to do the heavy killing for them. No US air support would mean Iraqi troops refusing to venture far from base.
Then there's the Baghdad airport – the main lifeline into and out of that hell hole of country. Lumbering transports and troop-ladened passenger planes already have to perform corkscrew-dive bomber style landings to avoid getting hit by conventional ordinance. Such aerial dodge-ball antics don't confuse the new Iranian-supplied Manpad missiles.
So now what? Well, for starters don't expect many of those photo-op visits to Baghdad by US officials after the first commercial or military transport gets hit. After that the once routine task of flying in fresh US troops and flying out the exhausted and wounded troops will become a life and death crap shoot.
All of which raises the obvious question; does the Bush administration realize they are repeating the Soviet's mistakes?
Apparently not. Iran provides deadly ground-to-air missiles to the insurgents and the Bush administration does what? It moves two aircraft carriers brimming with planes and helicopters into the Gulf -- a move that can only be read as another swaggering “bring-it on” from you-know-who.
I've given up hoping anyone in the Bush administration is going to “get it,” when it comes to the futility of this kind of anachronistic superpower behavior in the Middle East.
That leaves Congress. Though hope is slim, and seems to be getting slimmer by the day, Congress is our last hope that adults will step in and put an end to this abortion of war.
And end it Congress could, if only they would. Congress is the paymaster for this war. So, the next time you talk to your elected members of Congress, ask them; are they going to just keep writing checks for replacement sitting duck helicopters for Iraq? The Soviets did, until they ran out of money -- and those willing to fly them.
Is Congress going to allow Bush to pack 25,000 additional US troops into planes and fly them into Iraq now? What's it going to take, a 737 or C130 being blown out of the sky over Baghdad rainging the bodies of a couple of hundred troops onto the airport tarmack? Is that what it'll take -- and aerial Beirut barracks -- before you stop paying for this madness?
If so then Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- are no better, smarter or more worthy of our votes than those in the administration who started all this.
So Congress, cut the funding and cut the losses. Because, not only has the war itself changed, but the reason we are being told for being there. Bush may have started this war to protect our access to oil, but now he's just trying to protect his own legacy. And he's paying for that protection with the lives of other Americans children, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers.
Make no mistake about it -- Congress is the enabler in this dysfunctional relationship. The enabling agent is funding. Like the alcoholic he is -- one war-funding resolution is too much for George W. Bush and a thousand fundings not enough. The time for a Congressional intervention is long overdue.
Give the administration six more months of funding and tell them to use it to begin an orderly withdrawal for Iraq. Or else be ready to explain to the American people why you need to appropriate more of our tax money for helicopters, a lot more helicopters, and the people willing to pilot those flying coffins.
I don't care how it's described, or how other's may describe it. Call it whatever you like; a “redeployment,” a “strategic withdrawal,” or “cutting and running.” (Wanna bet Gen. Custer wishes he had?)
Anyway, Congress -- HELLO -- please “get it” -- it's over. So, senators, representatives, get our troops – and pilots -- the hell out of there – and sooner rather than later.
Otherwise just shut the hell up and ask Bush if there's room in his bunker for his enablers.
Research Reveals Fool's Paradise
"As fool's paradise is a wise man's hell."
You've heard the term, "fool's paradise," but have you ever wondered what one looks like? The trouble is real fool's paradises are a bit like sub-atomic particles, they have such short half-lives that it's hard to observe in real time. But, like Quarks, they do reveal themselves, if not in the flesh, at least in the data. The careful observer can see them coming, if they bother to look. Later. once they pass, you can observe the effect they had on their surroundings.
So it's not surprising that so many Americans are living and planning as though nothing were amiss. The stock market -- the worst of all possible fool's paradise indicators -- is perking right along as though these were boom times. Housing values are down a bit, but have yet to collapse. Consumers continue spending, now dipping into savings to do so. And when savings run out and lower wages can't keep up, they borrow.
The federal government apparently thinks there's not a thing wrong in continuing to borrow over $8 billion a month -- month in and month out -- to finance a war of choice.
Meanwhile our whole damn country runs on oil, the stuff is not only running out, but comes mostly from parts of the world busily tearing themselves apart.
The above behavior has turned our atmosphere into a trash pile which has finally caught fire -- feel the heat? Ice caps are melting so fast you can watch them shrink in real time. Prime beach-front real estate is on the way to being submerged beneath up to five feet of water over the next few decades. The days left for thousands of low lying islands -- and the people that live on them -- are numbered.
Yet, by observing the behavior of government, businesses or the general population, you wouldn't think any of that was going on, or that if it is, that it mattered little. That's where the careful observer can detect a fool's paradise in the making.
Maybe you're one of those who has not noticed. If you don't look, you can't see it, or even feel it. But trust me, all the data says it's so. Even as you read these words it's ripping at the fabric of the comfortable and familiar life most of us still enjoy, and veneer that surrounds daily life. By the time you can see through it, it'll be too late.
I could try to describe this fool's paradise in words, but that would require too many words, and too many folks would still not get the picture -- or refuse to. So at the end of this short post I have some pictures -- data pictures -- snap shots in time, pulses taken, demographic and economic EKGs. They show what's happening behind the facade of normal life Americans cling to. And it's that data which suggests there's really very little normal about it at all. In fact, when you look at the data, almost all it is about the abnormal. If a patient came into an emergency room with vital signs like these he would be sent straight to intensive care.
Where's it all headed? Well, that's for each of us to decide on our own. Look at the data, use your common sense and extrapolate. If you do you will likely reach the same conclusion I have; that we are living in the final days of the good times that began in the 1950's. Quite simply, we got greedy. We raped the golden goose, killed it, plucked it and are now feasting on the final scraps.
Of course most Americans will cling to the hope that it's all just another cyclical economic blip and, like the many others over the last seventy years, it'll all sort itself out and before you know it we'll be back to driving, shopping and living as usual. After all, remember what they taught us in school -- that the changes made to our national economy after the 1930s Great Depression guarantee nothing like that can ever happen again.
That's where the "fools" come in. The fool is the indispensable ingredient in a fool's paradise. It's not a paradise for the fool, but because of the fool. And there has to be a lot of them. They all have to share an almost bulletproof sense of optimism, be rock-solid stubborn and immune from facts. (That's key.) A fool's paradise that is not allowed to achieve critcal mass is a near-miss, not a fool's paradise. The more obvious a fool's paradise is about to blow, the more important it is that the fools remain steadfast in their belief all is well and that the real fools are the onces running around sounding alarms.
There's nothing we can do about a fool's paradise once one reaches the point this one has -- except to prepare as best we can for the inevitable. Oh, and those preparations should probably include installing good locks and mabye a large club. Because when the inevitable happens fools almost always blame those who tried to warn them first. As their world collapses around them they react badly, and stike out at those who predicted it. They claim it's all our fault -- you know... our negative thinking... self-fulfilling prophesies .... those tax and spend liberals... etc. etc. They'll blame everything and everyone, but themselves.
That's why they're called "fools."