You folks are starting to make me think there really is something here. I was just trying to make a joke, but now it looks more convincing. I had no idea the frequency of psychiatric reactions is so high.

A key statement from the Am. J. Psychiatry article: "The microbiology of Borrelia burgdorferi sheds light on why Lyme disease can be relapsing and remitting and why it can be refractory to normal immune surveillance and standard antibiotic regimens." This means there is an excellent chance that Bush's mental state will indeed suffer further. That thought alone should have Iran running for cover.

The claims of "complete resolution" and "no recurrence" sound like the usual Bush White House spin, as ondelette points out Froomkin has suggested. I'd take it further and suggest it's ridiculous to claim he got the tick bite while bicycling. It's much more likely he got it while clearing brush on his ranch.

Interestingly, the CDC MMWM for June 15 (http://tinyurl.com/32wa6h) summarizes the data on Lyme disease for 2003-2005. There is a map with reported cases. Although cases in the northeast prevail numerically, there are reported cases reasonably close to Crawford.

"US Promotes Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose"

This story by Hassan Fattah fits so well with what Glenn has been saying. Here's my favorite from the story:

In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability.

Yup, analysts in Dubai can see very clearly that Bush's "policy" of supporting factions only serves to cause more resentment and violence. No "serious" analyst here could say that, of course, even though it is the truth. Kind of surprising it made it into the Times.

Does Bush really want free and fair elections in Pakistan?

Shouldn't you add the days at Camp David and the time at dad's place in Kennebunkport? He already has to be way past the record.

Rasmussen Reports issued results yesterday of a poll (http://tinyurl.com/yq7ld2) on wiretapping. They used as title for their release "59% Say Intercepting Phone Calls from Foreign Suspects Makes USA Safer". It appears that the 59% figure relates to a question posed regarding "terrorist suspects". It actually seems a little surprising to me that a higher percentage doesn't favor the basic concept of monitoring communications from actual foreign terrorist suspects (not a Bushco-defined suspect, but someone known to have real terrorist ties).

This number breaks down in an interesting way by voter affiliation, with 79% of Republicans but only 48% of Democrats favoring the concept. My guess is that the Democrats realize the Bushies are quite "liberal" wrt defining a terrorist suspect.

I was completely gobsmacked by the following paragraph:

However, only 34% of all voters are aware that Congress recently approved legislation expanding the government’s ability to intercept phone calls and other communications without warrants. Thirty percent (30%) believe that Congress rejected the legislation while 36% are not sure.

I was travelling as the FISA revision was jammed down Congress' throat, but was able to find out about it very quickly. I thought the bill was covered in all of the M$M, but the level at which the people are not paying attention is simply staggering.

Equally staggering, however, is the 30% group that think Congress actually blocked the legislation. Can we take some solace in that figure? Are these people who aren't paying that much attention, but assume that Congress is still putting up a good fight for our rights?

How do we make the sleeping 66% wake up and pay attention?

Another point addressed in the poll is whether either individual rights or national security is receiving too much attention to the detriment of the other. Overall, 34% say the emphasis on individual rights is infringing on national security, while only 27% say the emphasis on national security is infringing on individual rights. As expected, the breakdown by party affiliation is telling:

Republicans, by a 52% to 12% margin, believe that the legal system is too concerned about protecting individual liberties. Democrats, by a 39% to 19% margin, take the opposite view and believe the legal system shows too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties.

Despite their distancing themselves from Bush on some issues, the Repugs still march toward a totalitarian state on this vitally important issue, while the bulk of the country is simply uninformed of the continued erosion of the foundations of our country.

I really like your thinking here. I would add to this an idea for a YouTube video. The music is The Police singing "Every Breath You Take". The lyrics include:

Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break, every step you take
Ill be watching you

Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play, every night you stay
Ill be watching you

The images would start with headlines of the initial disclosure of warrantless wiretapping, move to video of inane comments on the topic by Bush, footage of McConnell's testimony and then screenshots from CSPAN of the final votes last week. The clip would fade away with a new icon for the movement, based on the original "Kilroy" (see the Wikipedia entry on "Kilroy was here") but with a pair of wirerimmed glasses added and the phrase "Karl is watching you".

Like Karen M, I don't have the software or expertise to put this together, but would love to work with someone who could. Sting actually sang an alternative version of the ending of this song for a British satirical tv show, so it is possible he would give permission for the project.

Here's the link to NYTimes archives of his speech from March of 1994. http://tinyurl.com/2tnxug

Astonishing. This needs a lot of repeating.