Harry Reid is upset that Las Vegas has been dropped from the list of high-risk terror sites. Here in Albuquerque, we're upset because we can't get more than minimal DHS funding. I mean, we've got:

* A nuclear weapons design laboratory

* A couple thousand or more nuclear warheads stashed in bunkers

* A major Air Force Base, collocated with one of the biggest civilian air hubs in the area

* An Intel chip plant

* Oh, and we're represented by Republicans: Representative Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici

What more does it take? Yeah, Michael Chertoff has to go.

Why didn't Col. Wilkerson see fit to bring up his revelations about the extent and source of American torture policies back in 2004? He could have made a difference in the election, had he spoken up. Instead, he bowed out the moment the Administration's second term started.

Was he worried about losing his cushy pension, if he exposed Cheney/Bush's torture record before retiring? Afraid to be Swift-Boated along with John Kerry for offending his Dear Leader? Or was Col. Wilkerson looking to cash in with an expose, and the lucrative speaking tour that would accompany it?

Maybe that's it. He did Bush's right wing dirty work, like a good soldier, and when it no longer mattered, left the administration to rake it in bigtime from the lefties.

War Room states:

"During a meeting in the Oval Office in January 2001, the Times says ..."

No, it doesn't. The New York Times says the meeting was in January 2003 .

It kind of disturbs me that so many of the comments appear to believe that Keillor is really against incense in the Catholic Church. It's HUMOR, people!

The comment by John Heany, "You remind me of the school bully who when he's forced to back down from a fight, strikes out at the kid nearest him," is right on - although Heany doesn't get the joke. And it IS a joke.

I thought "cat stranglers" referred to Doctor Bill Frist, majority leader in the US Senate, who describes it in his autobiography: when he was in medical school, he'd visit local pounds looking for cats, which in those days they'd give you for free, describing himself as an animal lover. Then he'd take a kitty home and dissect it, to further his study of anatomy.

Cats have some muscles that humans don't, and a number of other differences, but it was close enough. And cheap.

I notice a fair amount of commentary from people who haven't yet seen Cars - and who, for generally stuffy elitist reasons, have decided not to. Too bad.

Some think it's Pixar hackwork - poorly animated, crudely done. Nonsense! The luciousness of the backgrounds, the details and detailing of the automotive characters are all superb. The reflections on their sleek paint jobs in the full glow of classic Route 66 neon has to be seen to be believed. Today, after seeing the movie, every car on the road looks different - more alive - than it did before I saw Cars.

Others whine that there's nothing new about the story. Sorry, guys and gals, but that one just doesn't fly. Most of the great literature is based on old, oft-repeated stories, from Gilgamesh to Troy to Beowulf to Shakespeare to Hitchcock to Bergman. There's a reason the same old chestnuts keep coming back, in one form after another. People crave these stories. Children, in fact, should love this one, even if their oh-so-sophisticated parents may not. And the movie teaches life lessons of curbing your own selfishness, teamwork, helping others, respecting earlier generations, letting your wealth trickle down - oh, and striving to excel.

This "red state/blue state" prism that many have tried to force the movie through is just bizarre and tiresome. It's irrelevant. The movie doesn't attempt to divide and polarize - it successfully finds common ground.

I live on Old Route 66, by the way - on a part that got the Interstate (I-40) going right through it (and I-25 as well), but nearby to places that didn't. They got the details right, right down to the spectacular scenery. You elitists in the Midwest may not recognize the realism, having mainly old Roadrunner cartoons to go by, but a big part of the thrill of the movie, for me, was how accurate the mountains and deserts looked (with slight cartoon exaggeration, of course.)

And then there was the thrill of the road - if you weren't moved by the opening sequence coming into the racing stadium, then frankly, I pity you. Driving on the Interstate, by day and by night, driving on the twists and turns of Old 66, cruising main street, speeding across the fields pursued by Frank the Harvester - it's what's fires America's romance with the automobile. (Well, maybe not the part about Frank.)

We'll eventually be using more public transit. Many of us will be able to reproduce a fair amount of the thrill of the road via bicycle. But there will always be a desire for fast, reliable personal transportation - and it doesn't need to be petroleum-fueled. You're not going to kill this desire by snarking about SUVs, peak oil, or global warming. In one form or another, people want to be able to drive where they want to go, by their own schedule, on their own journeys of discovery.

If you break down and go to see Cars, maybe you, too can remember this thrill.

Elbonius notes: Five hours and RUN LIKE HELL! That's Bush's Brave New Iraqi for you. Mission Accomplished!

That's not just how Bush "tours" Iraq - he does the same thing at his "public" fundraisers here in the good old U. S. of A.

Per Johnny Salami: finally, a man with vision.