I think more attention should be paid to Robert Reich, but he also needs to kick his analysis up a notch or two.

I can give an example of what the country needs from recent experience. A drugstore near where I live is on the edge of a "minority" neighborhood. Because of the influx from Chicago, there is increased gang presence. A few weeks ago I stopped by the drugstore to buy some staple items, and a couple of young "black" men were hanging out near the entrance, menacing people who were coming and going, aggressively asking for money. They were both over six feet tall, one about 6'4". I looked them both straight in they eye, and for some reason they didn't bother me. Maybe it was because of something I noticed. They both had a softness in their eyes that said they weren't bad people, and would rather be doing something else.

These guys should have jobs, but they wouldn't have jobs even in good times. If we continue to have a system that automatically leaves large segments of the population out, then the system is doomed. Doomed, Robert Reich, and you don't have anything to say about it.

What Robert Reich and other economists need to do is read E.F. Schumacher and Herman Daly. I say read, not reread. Unless we have a lower tech, distributive, full-employment system that discards the ethic of infinite wealth and infinite growth, we will self-destruct, which, in case no one has noticed, we are well on our way to doing.

It would be a distraction to think of Congressional "birthers" as wackos or fanatics. They are part of a larger scheme, to render the Obama presidency completely powerless, and to usher in a "Republican" coup, elective or otherwise.

As I have said for years, the best way to look at "Republicans" is as a criminal operation, a mafia organization. It has been that way for a long time, but kicked into high gear in 1994, when the "Gingrich Revolution" enabled "Republicans" to render the Clinton presidency an impotent caretaker. Though Bush clearly stole both elections in 2000 and 2004, his thoroughly criminal regime managed to hold the world at bay for eight years.

Criminal gangs don't give up just because their schemes haven't worked. They are still criminals, and what matters most to them is their zeal for committing crimes. The only thing that stops them is imprisonment, and for the dedicated gangster, even that doesn't make much difference. "Republicans" are pantywaist criminals, not real tough guys, so prison would work with them. To a man they would cave once hard time came their way. The clank of the cell door would work wonders for their "correction."

The only real question is do we, as a society, have the ability to see things for what they are, and to respond appropriately? So far, we don't. Which raises the alternate real question: What will be the next scheme?

I continue to be amazed at how thoroughly Glenn Greenwald researches his writing. Still, I beg to differ about the roots of Bill Kristol's belief in lying.

The essence of lying lies in the character of the liar, just as the essence of torture lies in the character of the torturer. There is no such thing as "Straussian" torture, and the same goes for lying. Vote fraud, negligence, fake war propaganda, treason, corruption of the Justice department, domestic spying, kidnapping, fake prosecutions, etc., etc., etc. - all these crimes are rooted in the criminal nature of the perpetrators, not in ideology. All ideology does is provide cover and justification.

For example, George W. Bush. Ideologue? Pardon me. The guy can't even spell ideologue. From January 20, 2001 to January 20, 2009 there is no evidence that he had a thought deeper than "where's my remote?" As long as we anoint these people with the halo of a belief system, we give them a pass on their criminal behavior. They can always say they were doing it for the good of the country, when the good of the country was the least of their concerns.

I have never read Politico, but have found its minions to be a curious presence on PBS's "Washington Week." Often there are two Politico pundits on a panel that varies from four to five members. Apparently Washington Week is having trouble getting legitimate journalists to appear.

The panel rotates, and one of the occasional members is David Broder, he of the presumed status of elder statesman of the establishment "press." Another odious presence is Martha Raddatz of ABC, feigning gravitas in the hopes that it will cloak her superficiality. Well, I'm not sure what she hopes, but she really loads on the seriousness.

Washington Week used to be a good program in the days when Peter Lisagor was a weekly panelist. Back then people actually expressed views, rather than clouding them in platitudes. Discussions had some interesting tension, and one could gain a better understanding of the events of the day. Now it's a bland rehash of the week's news, with the one guiding principle that Washington, D.C. is the center of the universe. The guiding subprinciple is that the panelists are "players," insiders who "know where all the bodies are buried." What they actually know is stenography.