Usually in my letters and conversations, I restrain myself from hyperbole. You see it here and in various other forums all too often: folks on the right and left calling their opposite numbers "traitors," "feminazis," "evil," or what have you. It is not limited to the left or right; certainly there is shrill vitriol that comes from both sides. Clinton brought it out (and still does!) in the right; Bush (and his fellow travellers) does it in the left.

And yet with Cheney, I find my restraint crumbling.

With Bush, I can never decide if he is a "bad" man, that is a man who has examined the issues, and made an intellectual decision to follow a path that I find morally reprehensible. I am not one of those (their name is legion!) who thinks Bush is "dumb." I think he's intellectually incurious, a lightweight, out of his depth, and dangerously prone to seeking simple solutions to complicated problems. But evil? I honestly can't convince myself that he has the intellctual acumen to be labelled as such.

Cheney, however. Ah, now. Here is a man who served under Nixon, and is with foreknowledge, passion, and utmost effort doing all he can to establish (or re-establish) the "imperial Presidency." It is Cheney who continues to push torture, and it is clear that he understands very well that, all linguistic gymnastics aside, waterboarding absolutely is torture, but not only wants but demands our government's right to engage in it and similar acts. It is Cheney who continues to insist on the linkage between Saddam and 9/11. It is Cheney who continues to equate the questioning of administration policies with the coddling of terrorists. He does this knowingly, consistengly, and with no apparent remorse. It is Cheney who wants to prosecute the press for exercising their first amendment rights. It is Cheney who wants to slam the door on Executive branch transparency and accountability. Try as I might, I can think of no other word to describe such a man than "evil."

Bush mouths simple-minded platitudes designed to inflame his base and rally the support of the undecided middle. Cheney is much more dangerous; he is engaged in a long-range campaign of nothing less than remaking government in the image of something that he considers superior, but which is totally at odds to the ideals of the founders. He is evil, folks. And the sooner we are rid of him and Rumsfeld, the better for our country. The damage that they are doing to our country we will not know the extent of for years, perhaps decades, to come. They are a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Hm. Perhaps ol' Karl should go back to school so that he can relearn "The Math," since obviously "The Math" that he knows is just as inaccurate and fraudulent as various other Bush Administration predictions (e.g., the cakewalk in Iraq, being greeted as liberators, the insurgency in its last throes, the WMDs the knew were there, and on and on.

Welcome back the reality-based world, fellas. Best of luck living in it.

I don't read the New York Times (as a protest against their indefensible defense of Judy Miller, and their horrific Times Select policy), and the only portion of the Washington Post I read is Dan Froomkin, so I was out of the loop regarding Howard Dean's shutout of coverage in the post-election press. It wasn't until I read the letters here that I became aware of how Mr. Dean was ignored by the "mainstream media."

It should be noted, however, that the guest that Jon Stewart had on his post-election show on Wednesday, and to whom Stewart apologized for doubting his strategy was none other than . . . Howard Dean.

So one wonders: to whom should one pay more attention now regarding events of the day? The "paper of record?" Or "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report?"

I was going to post a letter about Barra's strange sideswipe at genre fiction, but as Steve Kelner and "Chris" have already done so, further comment would be redundant.

I will say, however, that at least "genre writers" condescend to provide us with plots, something that, all too often, "literary" writers seem unwilling--or unable--to do thse days.