I'm thinkibng of a million citizen march on the mall. We all wear tshirts that say "Gee, we just don't believe you, W."

If it all weren'tso sad, I'd laugh til I barf.

Kerry, for all his faults, is one politician who walks the walk when it comes to "supporting the troops." Wish more were like him.

That "liberal" has become a "dirty" word, especially by many (not all! and not even the majority!) who profess to follow the teachings of Christ, arguably the most liberal man of the past 2 millenia.

Here is the definition of "liberal" as supplied by the (online) OED:

• adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

Pay careful attention to definitions 6 and 7. How terrible! We must protect the children!

(And also interesting to note, the original Latin context meant "suitable for a free man")

Now here is the definition of "elite" (from the online OED as well):

• noun 1 a group of people regarded as the best in a particular society or organization.

That sounds even worse, doesn't it!

But clearly, who is considered among the "elite" is subjective. The liberal democrats (not unlike the framers) believe that the "elite" were those with the best education and liberal (definitions 1, 2 and 7) attitudes. The Bush administration's "elites" are those who have the greatest loyalty to Bush, and those who are best capable of keeping like-minded Bushies in power (regardless of the damage to the constitution, the supreme court, world opinion of the US, or individual rights and freedoms: you know, those things suitable for a free man!)

Since the Bush "elite" need not be free thinkers, it stands to reason that those who value knowledge, experience, openness to new ideas and curiouity about things unkown would be regarded as the enemy. What's so sad, and so frightening, is that somewhere along the way, being smart has come to equal being ... unmanly? weak? unpatriotic? ... in Bush's world.

That's what scares me most. That's what smacks of theocracy and totalitarianism. That's what poses the greatest threat to this country. I hope that this regime ends before the country truly embraces this and willlfully starts dumbing down our children in an attempt to be more "American." The liberal elite may be who save us from a second dark age.

"These people [top appointees in the W administration] are more "elite" than most of us are."

Well, that's what's so sinister about this "anti-elitism" campaign, isn't it? Those at the top are well-educated, but the foot soldiers of the base are told that pedigreed educations and asking critical questions of the powers-that-be is unpatriotic, unmanly and possibly a sin.

Just like the top Soviets in the "people's revolutions" never really worked to their potential to simply take what they needed. Some animals are more equal than others, no?

Personally, I'm just sickened by the idea of "education = out-of-touch/effete/unAmerican (possibly French?)" that seems to be what trickles down to the "common man" who time and again votes against their own self-interests (better health care, living wages, a cleaner planet, a more fair tax code, xorporate acounability, not to mention better access to quality education!) in the name of "values", or as a "stand" against the "elites". That it is espoused by highly educated "elites" who pass themselves as simple farmers and factory workers just ices the cake.

it's ok to engage in blatant nepotism and help your significant other get plum junkett jobs as long as they are loyal. Didn't I see this scene in "Casablanca?"

"I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that there is gambling on the premises."

"Your winnings, sir."

at the thought of scrutinizing any creative writing (however shocking, or badly written) for clear links to a person's state of mental health. There are countless people who make a living writing and filming truly gruesome stuff. If we labeled every writer of violence and horror as in need of counseling, bookstores and cineplexes would be a lot smaller. Violence (really icky, grusome violence) has been a part of creative expression since we started writing (cutting up children and serving them in a stewto their dad? Read the Orestia cycle. Behold the stanzas of slaughter in the Iliad, which enumerates the dozens of ways a man can meet the business end of a spear.) Unless a student is writing clear threats to a teacher or student in the guise of "creative" writing, I think it's best to judge the wok on its artistic merits (or lack therof).

I think a far more obvious clue to this man's mental state was the series of complaints filed against him by real women who felt they were being thrreatened in reality. I am disturbed, and saddened, that there was no consistent follow-up on this clear warning signal. This is the written record that demanded attention, and didn't receive its due.