Ribbons...medals...what's the difference? None, actually.

Medals are only worn on full dress uniforms, meaning rarely. Ribbons are worn on other uniforms to represent the medals awarded.

But the medals themselves also represent something else -- a citation. So to recap, the ribbons represent medals which represent citations awarded. And the citations are accompanied by service record entries, the only awards that really count. Everything else is simply symbology.

So what John Kerry did in 1971 was a symbolic act with symbols. He threw ribbons, medals, or ribbons and medals, or ribbons and someone else's medals over a fence. He could have just as easily thrown his rank insignia over, or his whole uniform, and the act wouldn't have been any more significant. Because he could have gone right back to the Navy Exchange with a copy of his service record and bought new ones (which he probably did).

Come to think of it, when Lieut.(j.g.) Kerry was released from active duty in 1970, he was given a copy of his service record. Now if he had thrown that over the fence, or if he had only resigned his commission, that would have been significant. But he didn't. (According to his records on his web site, he held on to his rank until 1978, when he was discharged. Interestingly, the site does not post a copy of his final DD214, only the one issued when he was commissioned from Officer Candidate to Ensign.)

As I have noted in the past, it mystifies me why we attach so much importance to symbols, while overlooking the things they represent. No wonder we are so susceptible to idolatry.

And if Sen. Kerry understood the differences between ribbons and medals and citations and symbology and reality, and was honest about his motives and understanding of the differences, then he could have handled his interview with Charlie Gibson with class, rather than lashing out at the president and at Charlie as an agent of the RNC.

Are the rich getting richer? Of course.

Are the poor getting poorer? No, they're getting richer too, but at a much smaller absolute amount than the rich. And the middle class (as the label implies) are somewhere in between.

Is there something wrong with this? Maybe, if you believe there's something "wrong" with gravity, and other natural laws.

Because as the economy grows, so do incomes. And the income scale is elastic, but fixed at only one end, since no one can "earn" less than zero dollars (except perhaps deadbeats in jail) while the other end, the top end, is unconstrained.

Think of the income scale as a bungee cord, anchored at one end and pulled from the other end, with a knot tied in the middle. If you stretch the cord another foot, the knot will move less than a foot, while the anchor remains fixed. So it's impossible (in a relatively free labor market at least) for median incomes to grow as fast as upper incomes.

This being a natural law, there are consequences when it is misunderstood or disrepected. Pilots and acrobats who disrespect the law of gravity have short careers. As should politicians who disrespect economic laws. The consequences of resisting market forces in the distribution of incomes are guaranteed to be worse than the original condition.

Now if you don't like the idea of the rich getting richer (yes, there are actually many who unabashedly admit to this irrational sentiment), you need only to freeze the growth of the economy. But then no one's income will grow. The poor would remain poor, the middle class would become entrenched, and the rich would remain comfortably privileged. And you would have: France.