I've been writing these columns for some 7 1/2 years now (geez, really?). And often I've pontificated about one thing or another. I've always assumed that people would read what I wrote and understand that it's just my opinion. Of course, everyone knows what the word "assume" does...

A few weeks ago, I got a call from a breathless radio producer in Charlotte. He'd read a piece I'd written for Lies Magazine way back in 1996 or 1997. I was living in St. Pete back then, and our local police chief had managed to single-handedly turn a significant public relations disaster (a policewoman shooting--and killing--an unarmed black man) into a running melee. The local and national press called it a riot. I didn't (and wouldn't today) call it a riot, but there you have it. The police chief was a moron. And as things happen, morons fail upwards. He went to Charlotte and proceeded to make a mess of things there. Which is how I came to get this phone call.

This guy thought he'd found the smoking gun: proof in print that the police chief was not only a moron, but a racist one at that. One slight problem: I made up the whole thing. See, the piece ran in Lies Magazine. Lies. As in Not True Magazine. As in We're Making This Up Because We Think It Is Funny, Even If It Is Really, Really Sad Magazine. That sort of thing. After spending a couple minutes trying to figure out what the hell the producer was talking about, I managed to tell him that the whole thing was just a joke, just my personal perception of the police chief's mindset. The much-chagrined producer got off the phone as quickly (and nicely) as he could.

That's the thing about the web. You can't believe everything you see on it. I happen to think that's good; it keeps me on my toes. Every time I find myself believing something that just can't be true, I tell myself to be more skeptical and work harder to disprove my own pet theories. We all suffer a wide variety of misunderstandings, but I'd like to minimize mine as much as possible.

But hey, the best of us have our own petty delusions. Even the Prez. He wanted to invade Iraq. He needed a good reason. Some folks in the CIA thought they had one. The Prez wasn't so concerned about how solid the info was; he just wanted something to wave around in public so that the people wouldn't think he was some kind of dingbat with Iraq on the brain. A lot of smart folks (including his opponent-apparent, John Kerry) believed what the Prez said when he laid out the case for war. I didn't, but then, I didn't want to believe him. Not exactly rigorous thinking on my part.

The thing is, much of the information needed to make an educated decision on the threat of Iraq was out there in the public domain. Most of the conclusions of the reports from the United Nations weapons inspectors had been reported in newspapers, and the reports in their entirety are (and were) available on the UN website (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/docslist.htm). Now, I'm not saying that you should believe everything the UN says--any more than you should believe everything that the Prez says. Humans are fallible. On the other hand, the UN reports are dreadfully specific, tediously so. The CIA information, as characterized by the Prez and the Secretary of State and other folks, was pretty vague. The few instances of specific information (yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes, etc.) were quickly and conclusively disproven by any number of impartial (and, of course, partisan) critics. In hindsight, of course, the UN reports have been shown to be astonishingly accurate. But that's an after-war discovery, which isn't particularly useful when contemplating pre-war mistakes.

Of course, the Prez doesn't concern himself with any mistakes he might have made. He has shown himself to be astoundingly incurious, completely incapable to self-examination, and oddly unable to even begin the process of critical thinking. He doesn't read newspapers. He gets all his information in digests, ignoring primary sources. His instinct is to assail any contrary thought without consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually believes that opposing a "war president" (his term, not mine) is tantamount to treason.

I don't blame him for this. It's not his fault. This pattern of willful ignorance is so prevalent in his words and deeds that it must date back to his childhood. And given that most people who attend prep schools and Ivy League universities come out of that experience well-versed in the arts of skepticism and criticism, I'd have to put the onus on his parents. For all the lionizing of Bush pere now being done by folks who hated him when he was in the White House, the fact remains that he managed to raise an alarmingly dull son. I think it's also fair to heap plenty of blame on the Prez's mom.

Maybe not. After all, he's been married to the First Lady for a much longer period of time than he spent at his family home. So she can take her piece of punishment as well. And whoever got the guy born again, well, I think there's a person who ought to pencil in a few centuries--at the very least--in Purgatory.

On second thought, it's not fair to blame those folks. They meant well. They didn't know what they were doing. But we, the people, did. The Prez exhibited his astonishing knack for incuriosity thousands of times during the 2000 election campaign. He put it on display for all to see. And a lot of people voted for him. So it's our fault for electing him.

Or not exactly electing him. Still, the Supreme Court is as good an electoral tiebreaker as any, even if the coin is unbalanced. He's in office, we put him there, and so the Iraq War, the budget deficit, the gutting of environmental regulations, all that stuff is our fault. Even if we didn't vote for him.

To be specific, it's all my fault. Everything the Prez does is my fault. Blame me. Come down to my house and kick my ass three times a day if that makes you feel any better. I didn't vote for the guy and I rarely agree with what he says or does, but he's my president. Everything he does is my fault. That's what democracy is all about. To say anything else is passing the buck. And I'm surely not going to do that.

Jon Worley generally votes for losing candidates, though he hopes to turn that around this fall.