Are almost always bound to fall apart under close analysis and attention to detail. Prime examples of this are Samuel Huntingon's "Clash of Civilization" theory and Strauss and Howe's generational theory (which this article kind of reminds me of). This one is almost so vague--because it doesn't clearly define what a "republic" is, and posits a link between technological change and change in "republic" that is basically unexplained--that it almost defies that kind of analysis. As another writer noted, this is kind of like the first draft of an interesting paper--but I think even the final draft would end up looking kind of silly.

That said, I think Mr. Lind happens to be somewhat on the right track, but not for the reasons that he thinks. A "republic" is a non-monarchic system of rule in which the government (elected or not) purports to represent the people. The first republic in America, then, clearly occurred following independence from Britain, and took the form of a loose confederation of individual states--the Articles of Confederation government. The second Republic was the one established by the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 (and some key early decisions by the Supreme Court such as Marbury vs. Madison and Martins vs. Hunter's Lessee), which was a union of these states, with a central government with limited powers. Lind is correct that a new republic was created during the Civil War and its aftermath, but the reasons for it are both simpler and more profound than the ones he seems to posit--the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which in addition to abolishing slavery (by aobligating the states to respect the same individual rights that the central government did, and requiring of them equal protection for all citizens) created a completely new constitutional order with (in theory) much greater individual freedom and a much stronger central government.

It's also reasonable to argue that the world wars and Great Depression (more so than the Second World War) also birthed a new republic, by the progressive income tax, the vast expansion of the federal administrative apparatus, and the creation of Social Security and other welfare programs. This transformed the United States from a constitutional order that was basically libertarian (especially economically) into (however much anyone, right or left, wants to deny it) a redistributive welfare state.

I would further argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the upholding of its constitutionality) created our current, Fifth, Republic, by imposing non-discriminatory behavior not only on federal and state government but on private enterprise and individuals.

P.S. France has also made another try at monarchy between 1789 and today.

I predict that Parker will leave NRO within six months, and the Republican Party within a year. The GOP is entrenching into a party of nothing but evangelical Christians.

Small error--the organization in question is called FAIR (al lcaps) Fund, not Fair Fun.

As for the criticisms, it's worth pointing out that at this point, teachers in the DC school system do not have adequate training/expertise to teach about sexual violence. The counter-counter argument that they *should* have such expertise is obvious. The task force does conduct teacher training as well, and its ultimate goal is towards a self-sustaining program that is fully integrated into the regular curriculum.

I agree that sparing grieving mothers the specifics of their children's final moments are among the least destructive of the lies told by the U.S. military during the course of the Iraq business. That said, "It is possible that the two circumstances of death were momentarily confused during informal discussion before or after the briefing" is an almost comically pathetic example of an officer trying to avoid taking responsibility for a mistake. *He* didn't confuse the circumstances of death, of course--the circumstances *were* confused by mysterious and intransient actors.

Re: towed mortars being used by insurgents, it's entirely possible. The old Iraqi Army arsenals were raided by insurgents (or however you want to name them) during the fall of the regime, and mortar attacks on US bases are or used to be a daily occurance in Iraq. The countryside is large, humans (and even towed mortars) and what can be spotted by air or detected by radar at a given moment is limited.

"And now he's defying a court order to release photos that would further implicate Bush and company in criminal activity."

I'm extraordinarily dispapointed in Obama for this flip-flop, but he's not "defying a court order." He's instructing government laywers to object--in other words, going thorugh legal process. The process is towards an end I thoroughly disagree with, but he is not unilaterally "defying" an order.

Suggesting that Pelosi should be included in any probe into torture isn't partisan rancor...it's exactly what the investigative process demands. "Partisan rancor" would be claiming that only Republicans should go down/go up the river for what happened.