It is not a stretch that Lou Reed, Gotham protagonist of The Velvet Underground, storyteller of NYC, would frame his thoughts and reactions in photographs. It is not surprising that a man of his talent and curiosity could find visual harmonies among a roiling cacophony of metropolitan themes, see the beautiful folding light as it descended, twisted, faded and changed across the hard line organic motion of The City.

What is delightfully enlightening is his presence as a visual artist; a distinctive availability and honesty that feels like his music, like a favorite pair of old boots. Unencumbered by an excessive need for personal style, he is free to look and wait and explore - a trifecta genesis of several masterpieces. Ego muted, his vision is called from backstage and takes the mic, no opening band. Visual music now, capturing those present, compelling another look and another.

Amy Reiter's interview sought the man where the artist singularly sought the art. His verbal dodges and escapes were crafty, solidly in deference to captured times. Interviewer and interviewed both knew the flickering collage of shapes on the wall were the pointed focus of this brilliant American storyteller, not the storyteller himself.

It is not Reed, never was. He understands his role as catalyst of cool rhythms, textures, movements, vignettes. It was always a cooperative experience he wanted to share with the audience and, lucky us, he's invited us into his fort again - this time for a look instead of a listen.

For a Washingtonian it's not all that surprising to see Russian as an ATM language option. I work in Spokane and Seattle, the two largest cities in the state, and both have large - and burgeoning - Russian communities. The Russia accent has become so familiar to me that it's beginning to disappear. I can only imagine how nice it must be for these neighbors to make such a transaction in their native language.

The dialogue between letter writer and Cary simply cannot enwrap the subject.

If there were only "drugs," some all encompassing category of chemicals through which we could comfortably separate and judge users and non-users, employing personal righteousness informed by experience (and lack thereof), a good dose of conformity and no shortage of criticism.

But there is not a spacious canvas called "drugs" onto which we can project our perceptions on the matter, let alone some prevailing perspective that is any more right than another. Our choices about chemical use usually represent complicated, nuanced, evolving attitudes that ride a sea of contingencies and circumstances.

Issues of addiction, poverty, survival, morality, subculture, profit, geography, tolerance and many, many more complicate this subject and cannot be easily disregarded.

A candid crafter of entertainment derived of international curiosity, broad interest in people and ceaseless love of food and drink, Bourdain is precisely the person from whom I wanted to read a firsthand account. Save the veneered CNN host, spare me the detached BBC correspondent; without knowing it I wanted to hear a slice of that madness from a blunt New York chef.

This article's argument is reasonable, sound, aware and informed -- and as such appears completely at odds with the Administration's raison d'être.

This close to the midterms with nothing but bad news dominating headlines, my money is on Rove to recast this whole debacle as a rallying cry to support, not condemn, the Republican party. Ostensibly, with the right spin, this situation could be amplified to represent the latest threat that only the Administration and its manifold tendrils can answer or contain. North Korea could be a rallying, bellicose call to arms.

First, get the message out: We're not going to be threatened by this regime and its desire to kill Americans, kill freedom and kill the world. The Senate and Congress pick it up, make central themes of a menacing, hostile North Korea in their campaigns for reelection. The talking heads are given talking points and the mainstream press begins to echo the message. North Korea must be stopped and we must stop them - even if acting alone.

The UN is then depicted as pointless weaklings, perhaps even appeasers. Democrats are ridiculed for not having an answer to the threat. Without a coherent message the Dems scurry and look for the right message while the Republicans effectively take over the airwaves. The public, drifting through the noise, lose sight of the Foley scandal, forget Iraq temporarily and panic. In the noisy, media filled blur depicting this newly cast, most grave threat, enough Americans vote for fear, vote Republican.

For Bush and his coterie of doom it would not matter if we actually acted against North Korea, only that the House and Senate stayed in friendly, enabling hands.

Could this prediction be off base? Could the US be at a place, at long last, that we will not be fooled, not be scared? Let's hope so. But if I've learned anything over the last six years it's that this Administration and its party would do anything to preserve and augment their power; and that a healthy swath of Americans are uninformed and fearful and voting accordingly. It is this cocktail that has brought our country, indeed the world, into a very dark age.

It is a truly sad and cynical hope that we've finally suffered enough to demand change, starting at the ballot box. But it may be that this is the only real hope we've got.

Let me try this again....

If we all have a nexus of ideas that metaphorize that point at which all category of knowledge breaks off, then this is simply Dawkins' belief system (not to get all reductionist on you).