The art that Bush chooses, as mentioned in the Blumenthal piece, is clearly an indication of what's on his shallow little mind. But I'd like to lodge an objection to the inclusion of Norman Rockwell in the indictment. Yes, he's the first artist you associate with the Saturday Evening Post and its middlebrow comfort -- but his work, rather than illustrating the go-it-alone macho posturing of the cowboy paintings in the Oval Office, was usually a celebration of populism. His series illustrating "The Four Freedoms" is a good example of this. Further, Rockwell's work for the SatEvePost became most famous in the FDR era and beyond. His first cover for the magazine was contemporary with the paintings Blumenthal mentions, but his most famous and memorable work came decades later. Using his name in the headline (which may be an editorial rather than an authorial decision, I'm guessing), magnifies the injustice of associating him with the lowbrow, fascist tastes of Dear Leader.

The Wikipedia entry on Rockwell at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell has a typical illustration, his famous "Freedom of Speech." I doubt that's a picture that George W. holds dear to his heart.

A really scary example of what Bush does like to see on his walls is mentioned in this current entry at the SteveAudio blog: http://steveaudio.blogspot.com/2007/04/get-you-room-at-rhythm-ranch.html.

Taking off from the ridiculous media feeding frenzy about John Edwards' haircut, it offers jaw-dropping details about the obscenely expensive tastelessness of Bush's so-called "ranch" (which, I learned from this post, was built for Bush by members of a fundamentalist cult!) -- and one of those details is this amazing, though hardly unbelievable, fact... from Time magazine, yet:

Other walls have a few touches of humor: a framed likeness of President Bush dressed as an oil sheik greets you as you walk out of the bathroom.

Read the whole SteveAudio post... It takes Blumenthal's descriptions into an even scarier third dimension.

I've recently instituted a new rule for reading opinion pieces and editorials.

Whenever the writer uses a phrase like "the Administration should" or "Mr. Bush must," I say to myself "that's not gonna happen." Then I continue reading... or just give up.

In the case of this fine article, I read (and agreed) from beginning to end. But I think it's important to always be aware that this kind of essay is just preaching to the choir.

Will Karen Hughes choose principle over Bush worship? Very slim chance.

Will she screen your movie for George W. Bush? Well, she SHOULD, but she won't.

It really simplifies things to read with this rule in mind. Every day you see a people with good intentions writing to urge others to do the right thing. Problem is, I don't think it's working.

But please keep saying it, if only to remind us constantly of what's right. As for me, I keep signing the petitions, and calling the offices (Feinstein, this morning, to say that she MUST vote against the latest FISA atrocity -- will she? Fraid not).

You can make a long list. The White House "should" release documents. The Replicans "should" be made to actually stand up and filibuster (that's one of my own "should"s). Nancy Pelosi "should" put impeachment on the table. What are the odds?

My guess is that Sid B. knows that writing "to" Karen Hughes is a literary stunt. The real audience for this kind of prescriptive piece, besides us true believers, is the people on the margins -- those who are just figuring out where that horrible smell is coming from.

Those margins are creeping further in the right direction, and articles like this help. Every voice speaking the truth helps. Still, let's remember that we're basically talking among ourselves. They're not paying much attention to us inside Mordor.

Link to the gif should be http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2007/11/01/boll/story.gif

Holy shit, it's November.

OK. I looked at the 1898 timeline. There are two early occurrences of Brush, in February and in March. The Old Perfesser ventures to say:

Somebody in the cocksucking Commissioner's office wrote this as an APRIL FOOLS' PRANK.

How about that?

Thanks, Glenn (from another Glenn).

I come from that line of American Jews whose parents had to escape Nazism (if they could, and millions couldn't). With that overwhelming fact as background, I grew up in a family that embraced tolerance and progressive ideas. Having seen their own home country descend into a hell, they were extremely sensitive to supporting the Bill of Rights here.

It's unbelievable to me that any Jew, as a member of a historically persecuted minority, could support the horrors that we're responsible for in the Middle East, and the anti-American attack on liberties here. Even more unbelievable is the role of the Jewish neocons in creating these disasters.

Kristol, Podhoretz, Lieberman, and all the rest don't represent me, and they don't represent what I think of as Jewish values. It would be supremely ironic to see them in the dock at a future Nuremburg-style war crimes trial, next to Bush, Cheney, and the others. But that's what justice demands.

after every landing, deploy the inflatable slides.