--I have no idea who bill hicks is, but that's beside the point. it should be clear enough that 1) i'm satirizing, in my own way the irony that american society, the antiwar movement (be it the friendly, hip, cool, evenhanded, libertarian, humorous as all can be...anarchist wing or the evil, humorless, stalinist, kim ilsung order taker, ANSWER-Ramsey Clarke bound) are entirely dependent on the extent to which Americans die to maintain or further build an anti-war movement. All the moaning and deliberating over how evil Saddam was or whether or not the antiwar movement should mention how evil saddam was everytime it does something seems to miss the point that actually the main issue at this point is whether or not more American soldiers die in Iraq. since the american (and much of the world's for that matter) society and antiwar movement is not that preoccupied with the human costs of the invasion, the likelihood that the antiwar movement can make any progress in the future seems entirely dependent upon number of US deaths. i despise CNN's role in this war btw, the sad thing is that there are CNN people on the ground who try to do decent work (including probably the poor fellows who lost their lives this morning), but CNN has played a wicked role in this war, probably more so than FOX. ----------------------------------------------