.. is almost certainly the case that what we do not know, what remains concealed, vastly outweighs what we know.

Which fully explains why Bush will back Gonzales in the AG office to the bitter end. No matter who replaces him will result in the floodgates of transparency suddenly swinging wide open.

So who could replace Gonzales? Anyone acceptable to the Senate would never be nominated by Bush -- and vice versa anyone Bush would like would only be because he was as loyal as Gonzales and the Senate would reject him for that reason. My guess is that if the Senate manages to finally force Gonzales out, there will be a pro-tem from the civil ranks.

To our media stars, "Beltway crime" is an oxymoron, at least when it is committed by a high-level political official.

That should read "Republican high-level political official." Once a Clinton or an Obama or an Edwards is in office, you can be absolutely sure they will remember all the sacred principles of journalism. Want to put money on it?

Now, I'm wishing that Salon's editors would have taken a hacksaw and completely excised Greenwald's column of today. For it has to be the most obnoxious, over-the-top, self-serving sales pitch I've ever read in a journal of opinion

My I ask why you are here? I mean, not reading is an option, you know.

I haven't read the book yet, but if past history of your writing is any guide then I would expect that you would stick to your thesis and not wander off. And that is, stay with to the evidence and the logical conclusions and leave aside whatever unknowable and purely speculative such as what Bush "truly believes."

It is hard to believe we can write so many words over such a simple idea, isn't it?

Anyway, whether or not it is germane to your book, I would contest that it is not impossible to know what someone -- particularly someone so visible as Bush -- really believes. I used to believe otherwise, until way back when (2001?) I read Mark Crispin Miller's "Bush Dyslexicon." In that very early work Professor Miller points out that Bush is actually quite an eloquent speaker -- if the topic is something that matters to him such as the death penalty or the need for corporate self-regulation. As soon as he is required to speak on anything he really doesn't give a damn about -- such as education, domestic policy or the environment you get these outrageous verbal gaffes that for the most part the press smooths over for him.

Whatever else he is the man is no actor and armed with only this simplest technique of psychological observation you can see the core of him. I don't think anyone here cares what I think about Bush but I assert that it IS possible to know what is going on in his mind based on objective evidence.

At work there are FNC-listening Hannity-worshipping drones who haven't the slightest idea what is wrong with Podhoretz' "argument." To them it seems more like a football game than anything else.

Incidentally, this is all about protecting Israel. It doesn't matter how many people die -- innocent or not -- but the Jews must be in Israel so that Jesus can return.

I can't imagine what the military officers that still have some shred of honor left in them and are involved in this feel about all this. There is only so much "I have to follow orders" rationalization you can digest before your whole system of values just crumbles.

Of course, there are clumps of them -- getting promoted these days no doubt -- that are fully on board with this. The purpose of an army is to win, after all. I just can't imagine having to take a shower with one of them.

There is a natural tendency for any elite group to say "we got our power and prestige and income this way, so that's the way that it always ought to be." They will usually try to get laws enacted that ensure it. That's most of what you see when you see screeds decrying the "lawlessness" of blogs.

Perhaps their best argument is that it is so CHEAP to become a blogger, that anyone can do it, so absolutely "anyone" does. And 99% of them are fruitcakes or poor writers or both. But there is nobody around to fire them if they get "out of line."

The best way to respond to this "best" argument is that the free market decides. 99% of blogs don't even get 5 hits a day (less if you take out family members) so what is the difference between that and a blog that gets 50,000 separate readers a day? It is solely reputation and content -- "real estate" has almost no influence. That of course upsets parties that happen to own or occupy real estate since it is less valuable than it once was.

So why not ask the critics and whiners what they have against the free market? After all their darling, Drudge, gets plenty of hits so what are they complaining about?

Other topic: Glenn I got my copy of ATL today -- any chance of getting it autographed? ("Patriot" too for that matter).

Seig Heil

This is once again a demonstration of the "both sides are just as bad" tactic that the right wing uses to leverage themselves into power. Since almost all the bad acts are on the side of the right wing and the conservatives, this general leveling works tremendously in their favor.

Sadly enough it works on too many voters that will make their decision on what bumper-sticker slogan they like best. You have to admit it is a masterful bit of marketing.