The right monument?

With the Bush Administration's time in office coming to a close in 2009, with less than 280 days remaining until the Constitution dictates a change at the top, I'm beginning to wonder how the United States will commemorate these last eight years. Will Bush be remembered as many other Presidents are, with his name appearing on airports, freeways and ball fields? Will he join the pantheon of those few leaders commemorated through monuments on The Mall in Washington, D.C.? Or will a fitting independent monument to the Bush Legacy be constructed elsewhere?

One California group has an idea. Called the "Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco," the group claims to be a grassroots movement that wants to memorialize the Bush Administration thusly:

As we near the end of George W Bush's presidency, we think it is important to select a fitting monument to this president's work. On matters ranging from foreign relations to fiscal and environmental stewardship, no other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time. To honor George W Bush for his eight years of honorable public service, the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is sponsoring a ballot initiative this November in San Francisco. It reads:

"Should the City and County of San Francisco rename the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Facility the George W. Bush Sewage Plant?"

Now I make no secret that my views tilt to the left, and that I've never been a fan of George Bush or his policies. But I feel naming a sewage treatment plant after the 43rd President is, as a memorial, absolutely inappropriate.

The reason? Sewage treatment plants exist for one reason: to, and pardon my French, clean up shit. According to even the most basic Internet research, the Oceanside plant has been competently handling effluent and runoff from San Francisco's nearly 900 miles of sewer line without incident since it opened in the early 1990s.

Conversely, Bush has been busily creating a worldwide mess since his inauguration. And he's shown no intention of cleaning up even a single ounce of the crap he's created.

For that reason, memorializing the Bush Legacy by renaming such a competent, well-functioning facility after George Bush is simply inappropriate. It's an affront to sewage treatment plants everywhere, and as such, should not be supported.

On the other hand, I wonder if any of the three remaining Presidential candidates have considered the following: If Bush is serious about reconstructing Iraq, if his constant commentary about "encouraging democracy" and "nation building" wasn't just talkin' smack, why not secure a post-Presidential appointment as "Special Ambassador to Iraq, In Charge of Reconstruction?"

Sure, he'd have to be on-site, but if he wants to construct a better legacy among those who currently rank his Presidency somewhere between "prostate exam" and "root canal," why not? If it's too much, for such a gig I'm sure he could find a partner and work out some sort of job-sharing arrangement.

Anybody know if Dick Cheney is busy after Jan. 21?