I guess what scares me so much about what's going on is that, underneath the media-imposed fog of obliviousness, things have already changed so fundamentally. When the neoclowns declared "We make reality," we all laughed, but in the sphere of politics and perceptions it's true. The boundaries have all been moved already. So much of what is politically possible has nothing to do with laws and everything to do with perceptions. When perceptions have been altered so radically that arguments like Mansfield's can pass as perhaps a bit provocative but not particularly remarkable, we have already lost a great deal of ground.

The Bushist government is already acting under this theory of government; it's an accomplished fact. Yet the public and even the opposition party now in control of congress is still operating under a whole different set of assumptions that are simply no longer operative. Glen's piece along with Bowman's op-ed about Abu-G in today's (5/3/07) NYT, "He's Impeachable, You Know," really crystallizes this for me. In so many words Bowman makes the point that if Bush just wants to ignore Congress and keep Abu on, there's not really a thing Congress can do about it. Except for one: Impeach him.

The president may yet yield and send Mr. Gonzales packing. If not, Democrats may decide that to impeach Alberto Gonzales would be politically unwise. But before dismissing the possibility of impeachment, Congress should recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man. The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases...

I don't know if they see it in those terms, but that's what it comes down to. There are few levers left for halting our slide into an authoritarian police state. If Bush just chooses to ignore them, as he has done all along whenever it pleases him, then the limits on presidential power we thought were in place will simply fade out, much like the Congress's constitutionally-established power to declare war already has. Impeachment has to be an option, because ultimately there isn't anything else. Like that line near the end of the Maltese Falcon:

GUTMAN: Sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.

SPADE: That's true. But none of them are any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.

That's pretty much the bind Bushism puts Congress in. Lots of ways to get a president to do what you want, but ultimately none of 'em any good unless the threat of impeachment is behind 'em. And I just don't know if they understand that, and are willing to go the distance. I very much fear not.

I haven't read the letters yet, but ask yourself these questions...

Since none of those questions add up to anything, because the "letters" that you haven't (won't, can't) read make it absolutely and unquivocally clear that you are simply factually in error, how about you ask yourself this question:

"Why can't I admit I'm wrong about this?"

I think there's a simple reason he can't climb down. He's Time's token "liberal" columnist. All his juice--like that of other faux liberal pundits like Richard Cohen and faux Dem politicians like Joe Lieberman--comes from being the "left" guy who agrees with the right on national security. That's his paycheck right there. But it doesn't work if you get caught red-handed passing along GOP disinformation without even bothering to check its accuracy. Suddenly you're not a free thinking maverick, you're just an ordinary rightwing tool like Limbaugh or any other GOP shill. Kinda blows the whole act. He can't apologize for being wrong without admitting he willingly acted as a GOP conduit--it's really the only explanation. So he has to muddy the waters and claim it's all so complicated and abstruse and legalistic, and try to trivialize the whole matter. He has no other choice.

Wait a sec--the fact that Jody is gay is supposed to have just "come out" this year? You gotta be kidding me. I'm probably the least gossip-aware person on the planet but I've had it as part of whatever set of synapses pertain to Foster, an actress I admire, since, I dunno, forever maybe? Since (at least) Contact, anyway. That was, what, 1997?

Isn't this a bit like "outing" Ellen Degeneres???

...I can't even stand to watch the commercials. The idea of people taking some kind of vicarious enjoyment or solace from something that is, for me, the most personal, ongoing and agonizing pain offends me to a level that defies language. I suppose I shouldn't condemn you for watching it, and some of what you say certainly resonates--the pain of a grief that can never be fully expressed because the one who is "lost" is still physically present. But the emotion I have about this show is the same feeling people living in a neighborhood hit by some devastating tornado or earthquake have toward those disaster tourists who feel compelled to drive through and gawk at the destruction.

The correction about the belief that the earth was flat is worth the whole price of the book as far as I'm concerned. Amazing how persistent that one is, and how often repeated even in "serious" History Channel and PBS programs and the like. As a sometime professional medievalist I can't believe how often I'm reduced to yelling "THEY DIDN'T THINK THE EARTH WAS FLAT!!!" at the tube, even at shows with pretensions of historical accuracy and nuance.