Old farts like us...

Don't forget us fartessas Dirigo! Or are we your "better angels"? ;->

The Lord of the Rings analogy is perfect! I've not had much experience as a casting agent, but these would be my suggestions. Feel free to alter all but the last one - I really think I've got that one nailed down.

Aragorn - Glenn

Legolas - DCLaw1

Gandalf -

Gimli - RMP

Boromir -

Arwen - Bystander

Galadriel - Holly (either one)or Anonymust

(wishing I had more female characters to work with here...)

Elrond -

Bilbo -

Frodo -

Sam Gamgee - Bebop

Pippin -

Merry -

Sauron - Cheney

Saruman -

Gollum - sh**ter

Because ultimately, that is what they want: a docile, unresponsive, non-voting mass of people, stupefied by entertainment and shiny consumer goods. -- Presumptious Insect

Don't forget "controllable".

Bystander - Lord of the Rings is wonderful. It has special resonance for me since Bush got into office. The whole idea of maintaining hope and working toward the goal you know is right against huge odds, overcoming setback after setback. It's all very instructive.

Arwen has loads of courage and spunk. She may not be a shrew, but she's certainly assertive and, as any assertive woman knows, that's often enough to get you labelled. ;->

DCLaw1 - thanks for the Atrios quote. It's about time someone asked these folks to stop pissing on our parade and go create one of their own. If they really must moan, then they might as well do it on some RW blog where the screaming will drown them out.

I think bebop-o is truly Tom Bombadil, no?

Brilliant! Yes, thanks.

Many readers of the Lord of the Rings consider Tom's presence in the first book to be an unnecessary intrusion into the narrative, which could be omitted without loss. ... As Tolkien wrote in a letter in 1954, ". . . many have found him an odd and indeed discordant ingredient. ... But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out".

Judging by these remarks, critical readers are correct about the arbitrariness of Tom's introduction into the story; however, as Tolkien continues, he deliberately (nonarbitrary) kept Tom in to fulfill a particular role, to provide an additional dimension.

In trying to grasp what Tolkien has in mind here it is very important, I believe, to distinguish between an enigma and an anomaly, for Tolkien's interest in Tom involves the former while reader dissatisfaction treats Tom more in terms of the latter. An anomaly is something discordant, unrelated, out of place. It is in this sense that someone might claim that Tom could be left out. An enigma, on the other hand, is a mystery, a puzzle, something which seems to be discordant, unrelated, out of place, but isn't.

In a letter written to the original proofreader of the trilogy in 1954, Tolkien reveals a little about what Tom's literary role or function might be. Early in the letter he writes that "even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)"

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

That does seem to be our B, doesn't it? Thank goodness most of us are able to channel our inner Tolkien, eh?

Well, that's typecasting fer sure, but think of it as your 'Meryl Streep' (or maybe 'Johnny Depp'?) moment. ;->

Thanks for the link. Others have also given the names. Thanks to all for the assist. I have been to the government websites, and yes they are very useful (good suggestion). I was time-pinched earlier and wanted to get some letters out, if possible, in the little time I did have.

A wise teacher once drilled into my head, "You have to meet people in their own language window." Sometimes, if I listen closely I discover I can translate their needs and desires into a language that matches my own. Some are more wedded to a form of expression, a lexicon, a choice of words that is distinctly Right-speak, but when I dig down to what is beneath the rhetoric, their fears and mine share more than is evident at first glance. Often we agree on the Ends, even if we don't agree on the Means to achieve those Ends.

You speak elvish and understand trollish tongues! ;->

Word on the rest as well.

Thanks for the reminders. I knew I didn't have them all and was counting on others to fill the gaps.

Your description of B has much merit. Was I being a bit too orthodox in assigning him only one character? I think he would be up for the challenge that you lay out.

If shooter is Gollum, who plays Smeagol?

Good point. Ok, how about shooter for Smeagol and nabalzbbfr for Gollum? A little more accurate don't you think?

The littlest hobbit must be asleep......

Turdblossom.

That was an enlightening (though not surprising) juxtaposition. Devolution in action and an echo we could do without.

The validity of the procedure can't be defined on the basis of how much we like or dislike the proposal of the majority that's being filibustered.

Perhaps not, but validity can be defined by how the filibuster is being used. Filibustering a judicial appointment (are lower court appointments for life in the same manner as the Supreme Court?) is, IMHO, a more legitimate use of the tool as opposed to the GOP using it as a strategic tool to destroy nearly every piece of legislation brought to the floor by the democrats. The 109th Congress was, by historical review, the least productive legislative body ever. They are using the filibuster to tarnish the dems record in the 110th.

It's a basic SOP for these people. They are the best chop blockers on the field.

(h/t to anonymust and the 'sports analogizers' out there)