Anonymous,

This is in regards to your letter regarding posting here being a waste of time. I will first ask you to consider the countries in which people cannot enjoy this simple freedom of expression. I think that if more Americans participated in the simple political act of stating and debating politics intelligently in newspapers, blogs, websites, and other media, perhaps our counry would be a bit better off. In order to successfully state a position not based on pure belief but on actual facts and current events, one needs to be paying attention, and that is what most Americans appear to be not doing. Mr. Keillor is right, we don't want to face reality - to argue a position opens yourself up to scrutiny, to the possibility that a better reasoned position will trump your own; it is easier to simply remain silently seething. To not go to memorial day celebrations is to avoid the truth as well - that war is ugly, brutal, and costly. When one attends, they can see it in the faces of the veterans who served - it is easier to look away, to remain home around the barbecue. Participating in this, and other public exchanges is an important part of our democracy.

Don't take this simple freedom for granted.

It is clear that Bush is going to stubbornly maintain his personal committment to the Iraq War unto the end because that is all he has left; to admit that victory cannot be had would be too much of a disruption to his reality. Although a few republicans have jumped ship, the vast majority still go along with him, and at least one republican candidate (McCain) has bet his political future on the war. If the republicans keep this up, and if the war continues to go the way it is going, the 2008 election is going to be another "thumpin." Americans were fed up in 2006, and since then support has continued to erode. The democrats did what they needed to do: they stood up to Bush, saw the intractability of their efforts, then stood down. That this was surrender is mere republican spin. The democrats are merely biding their time, demonstrating a willingness to fight, and the wisdom to back down when the battle cannot be won. Yes, more and more lives are being lost every day in Iraq, but the blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the commander in chief and those who rally around him.

Another comparison that would have been interesting is the government's fondness for various subsidies, in Rome's case grain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome%27s_grain_supply. There are many examples that could be drawn from this today, especially with oil. In our case, oil is something as essential to us as grain was to the Romans, involving distant production (the bulk of Roman grain production was in North Africa), elaborate systems of transport, and massive government subsidies (in our case corporate welfare, but also the military costs of maintaining the system). Like our dependence on oil, the Roman dependence on the grain subsidy became a monster, sucking up massive amounts of resources in order to maintain. When the Vandals conquered North Africa, the blow to the Empire was tremendous - they were so important Justinian attempted to take the lands back, holding them for another century, until the Islamic conquest swept through in the 7th century.

The grain subsidy was part of the classic "bread and circuses," food and entertainment to keep the populace distracted and happy, in order to not rebel against the empire. Although watching gladiators kill each other must have been pretty cool, I'm pretty sure the Romans would love modern TV, especially brutal, rude nationalistic entertainment like Fox News. Watching Bill O'Riley eat a liberal for breakfast is probably the closest thing we have to throwing a slave to a lion.

Whoever mentioned that we saved France in World War II, please remember that without France we probably wouldn't even exist as a country. French support during the Revolutionary War was essential, in the form of financial aid as well as military aid.

As for the article, while I do not know enough about French politics to judge the accuracy of the characterization of Sarkozy, I share Levey's optimism. The United States and France have shared interests on the world stage, and it is foolish to not be cooperating. It is sad that it takes new presidents on both sides to realize this, but if anything this demonstrates how much inept leaders (Bush, Chirac) can poison relationships that stretch back centuries.