Remember the wars, everyone? I know, it's easy to get distracted with all of this talk about pigs and lipstick, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing continues. Hell, it's practically legal now!

Belmor Ramos, a US soldier who admitted to involvement in the shooting of Iraqi prisoners, has been sentenced to a puny seven months in prison for his internationally-condemned actions.

Inside an army base in Germany, Ramos finally faced the consequences of his actions last year in Baghdad when he stood by as four Iraqi prisoners were handcuffed, blindfolded, and then executed before him.

While Ramos didn't pull the trigger, he did nothing to stop the killings. Ramos explained his actions to a military judge:  "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification or excuse to do this."

Seven months, along with a dishonorable discharge, are the only punishments Ramos will receive. Seven other troops face charges. His supervising officers will likely avoid messy trials.

Meanwhile, Robin Long, the first US war resister was sentenced to 15 months in jail following his deportation from Canada. He too was dishonorably discharged, but Long received over twice the sentence of Ramos.

His only crime was going AWOL because he opposed the conflict in Iraq on legal and moral grounds.

In Iraq, murder is pretty much legal for Americans as long as you're killing Iraqis, and conscientious objections are worse than murder in the US army. You may get a little slap on the wrist if you kill a bunch of Iraqis when they're tied up. Ramos's only miscalculation was when he failed to cut the buggers loose before he gunned them down, so he couldn't claim they were charging him.

Back in 2005, the Pentagon reported that over 5,500 soldiers had gone AWOL in Iraq.

Another 5,000 deserted in 2007, alone.

The longer the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, the more we will see brave men and women choose to discharge themselves. A soldier vows to uphold the Constitution, not to protect the unfettered greed of an authoritarian regime. First and foremost, soldiers defend the people of the United States, and part of that defense means refusing to obey insane orders like executing hooded and bound prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The point is that no soldier can serve honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not there to defend a greater good. They're there as occupying forces that can do nothing except perpetuate violence. Astute troops are beginning to understand their dire situations, and they're looking for ways out.

When our soldiers decide enough is enough, they shouldn't be treated worse than murderers. They should be embraced and welcomed home without fear of negative retribution for obeying their moral duties.

Remember the wars, everyone? I know, it's easy to get distracted with all of this talk about pigs and lipstick, but in Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing continues. Hell, it's practically legal now!

Victoria Ramos, a US soldier who admitted to involvement in the shooting of Iraqi prisoners, has been sentenced to a puny seven months in prison for his internationally-condemned actions.

Inside an army base in Germany, Ramos finally faced the consequences of his actions last year in Baghdad when he stood by as four Iraqi prisoners were handcuffed, blindfolded, and then executed before him.

While Ramos didn't pull the trigger, he did nothing to stop the killings. Ramos explained his actions to a military judge:  "I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification or excuse to do this."

Seven months, along with a dishonorable discharge, are the only punishments Ramos will receive. Seven other troops face charges. His supervising officers will likely avoid messy trials.

Meanwhile, Robin Long, the first US war resister was sentenced to 15 months in jail following his deportation from Canada. He too was dishonorably discharged, but Long received over twice the sentence of Ramos.

His only crime was going AWOL because he opposed the conflict in Iraq on legal and moral grounds.

In Iraq, murder is pretty much legal for Americans as long as you're killing Iraqis, and conscientious objections are worse than murder in the US army. You may get a little slap on the wrist if you kill a bunch of Iraqis when they're tied up. Ramos's only miscalculation was when he failed to cut the buggers loose before he gunned them down, so he couldn't claim they were charging him.

Back in 2005, the Pentagon reported that over 5,500 soldiers had gone AWOL in Iraq.

Another 5,000 deserted in 2007, alone.

The longer the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, the more we will see brave men and women choose to discharge themselves. A soldier vows to uphold the Constitution, not to protect the unfettered greed of an authoritarian regime. First and foremost, soldiers defend the people of the United States, and part of that defense means refusing to obey insane orders like executing hooded and bound prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The point is that no soldier can serve honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are not there to defend a greater good. They're there as occupying forces that can do nothing except perpetuate violence. Astute troops are beginning to understand their dire situations, and they're looking for ways out.

When our soldiers decide enough is enough, they shouldn't be treated worse than murderers. They should be embraced and welcomed home without fear of negative retribution for obeying their moral duties.

The idea that "the people" will take on and destroy "the establishment" is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right.
-- David Brooks

This election has hosted some interesting stages in the evolution of rhetoric. John McCain has shown us that Change means four more years of the same Bush Doctrine that brought us wars and conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Pakistan, and Iran. Oh, and Russia. I'm sure I'm leaving countries out, too.

In Obama's world, Change means losing the election the same way as every modern Democrat before him. Barack Obama has shown us that Change means repeating the same mistakes of Triangulation as John Kerry, and before him, Al Gore, and before him, the daddy of Triangulation, Bill Clinton, who did manage to win an election but sold the Democratic soul with his win.

The evolution is most evident in the way pundits are throwing around words like Elitism and Populism.

Simultaneously, citizens are reminded that they should not be Elitist in their dismissal of Sarah Palin as unqualified, but they are also unequipped to lead a Populist, Democratic revolt in order to pump some new blood into the Washington machine.

Elitism now means evil snobbery and Populism means hopeless dreaming.

Elitism, David Books reminds us in the correct first half of his New York Times op-ed, used to be a way to filter out the cons and crazies. It used to mean finding the best man or woman for the job.

Now, the media has redefined it as dismissing God and Guns, and asking Sarah Palin if she really thinks living in Alaska prepares her for negotiating with Medvedev.

But if you're looking for Populism to correct this dictionary contortion, think again. In the same breath, Brooks calmly explains that it's up to the elitist leaders to save the day. Of course, this implies that these magical leaders somehow got elected, unless Brooks is praying for a return to the simpler time of monarchy rule. Giving Brooks the benefit of doubt, let's assume he meant the Leaders got elected...elected by The People....The People living in a Democracy.

Because that's how democracies work. It's sort of like the self-chasing arrows in a Recycling logo. Sure, we need smart, wise leaders to lead us, but The People are responsible for holding those same leaders accountable come election time. The only way for The People to know what the hell they're doing in the election booths is through self-education. The only way they can stay educated is for the media to responsibly report news in a balanced fashion.

If the Leader arrow swells, we'll find ourselves living under an authoritarian dictatorship. Warning: if you live in America, you won't notice this transition because it's pretty much happened already.

If the People's arrow swells, there will be revolt. Disclaimer: If you've lost your house, your job, and your phone is being tapped, you may feel the strong indication to light a torch and head toward the White House.

If the Media arrow fails, the People are uneducated and they elect Bush for a second term, or the People remain largely silent when the U.S. invades Iraq. Thanks, Judy Miller.

Think of it as Reality's checks and balances. Elitists and Populists have always lived side-by-side in America, but questioning Sarah Palin about her resume, or asking for government regulation in the economy are not examples of Elitism of Populism, and there's no need to redefine these perfectly good words.

Carly Fiorina is no more an Elitist for saying Sarah Palin doesn't have the experience to run a major company let alone the entire country than John Edwards was a Populist for talking about the realities facing blue-collar workers.

Fiorina and Edwards are simply aware of what is happening to the country, and dividing up Reality into Elitism and Populism is like dividing the country into Blue and Red. Ghettoizing us doesn't remove Realism from Reality. It just creates vast confusion and bickering.

And then -- BAM! -- we all wake up a week later, muttering something about lipstick and pit bulls. It's a waste of time.

Instead, let's redefine the moment. This is the Accountability moment. This is the moment when the People and the Media take back their power and ask for answers to eight long years of disastrous Bush policies.

I was shocked to learn in today's New York Times that Bill Kristol, much like John McCain, considers himself a bit of a maverick.

You see, ever since he was a little ragamuffin racing around in short pants, Billy Kristol claims to have loved the state, but now in his old age, he's booting out the "anti" in antidisestablishmentarianism, and is living out his winter years as a full-blown political Anarchist.

Boot out the Clintons! See ya' in hell, Bushes! Billy Kristol wants change in Washington!

Of course, Kristol has a strange definition of "Change," and he is exactly the type of laughably hypocritical fossil that new generations of Americans are so desperately trying to force out of power.

Kristol is a member of several conservatively-aligned think tanks. He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005, he is a member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, he co-founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997 with Robert Kagan, and he is a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the neoconservative Ethics and Public Policy Center.

But that aside, Kristol is just tickled pink that there's a lady running for the second highest seat in the land! Suddenly, with the arrival of Sarah Palin, William has tucked little Billy between his legs, and claims to be a born-again feminist. Praise Ani DiFranco! In fact, he's just outraged by all of these "Neo-Feminists," who refuse to clutch Sarah Palin to their bosoms. He quotes the "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" to describe feminists displeasure with Palin: "That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all."

Had T.S. Eliot seen Sarah Palin, he may very well have wrapped his arm around a weeping feminist and whispered, "Man, that DOES suck." But leaving aside such silly speculation, it's safe to assume that feminists aren't angry simply because Palin isn't their preferred type of female, but that she's not their preferred type of Vice-Presidential candidate, and worse, she's a woman, too!

But I digress. Kristol is also super stoked that there's a black guy running, even though he once erroneously claimed Obama was in church during Reverend Wright's infamous sermon. Suddenly, he's less concerned with Obama's radical God ties and more concerned with the Changiness in Barack's Change Machine.

Yes, Kristol is simply giddy over all of this change.

...Oh, he's also the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard, a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, and an Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times, one of the loudest, strongest supporters of the Bush Doctrine, the Iraq War, and the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Ahem. In the words of Jon Stewart: "Oh Bill Kristol, are you ever right?"

The answer is No. This is the year of Change, we've heard a thousand times a day. Now, with the economy in turmoil and U.S. troops dying abroad, the Bush sentinels will try desperately to evolve from their Free Market, Neo-Conservative cocoons. Kristol appears to be stuck mid-metamorphosis, and he's pathetically wiggling and squirming while trying with all his might to look like an exciting Revolutionary.

He's not. He's just a pathetic liar and the New York Times finds itself in a difficult position. The Gray Lady is walking a thin line between housing diverse political voices and providing sanctuary for one of the last Bush Doctrine apologists.