I don't for a moment doubt the validity of Glenn's story or what it says about the proverbial military-industrial complex. What I'm unclear about is what it's supposed to prove. We already know that the Bush regime lied and made up "facts" (we have a direct admission from some of the co-conspirators in the Downing Street memorandum, if nothing else). We also already know that network and other big media helped. You just had to occasionally watch TV or read the front page of the NYT to know that. So in a sense, this is like exposing the Pope's secret Catholicism or the shocking sylvan proclivities of bears.

I think there's a false premise lurking here, which is that most of the American people had any interest in avoiding war, or really believed, in the sense of being objectively convinced by facts, that they were about to engage in a "defensive" war that was necessary and justifiable. Those of us in the reality-based community were out on the streets protesting. War fever was just a response to what was perceived by certain people as national emasculation, and the cure for that was killing some brown people in a far off place. Dropping bombs on children made our fellow citizens feel better about the size of their mighty organs (of state), which is why pictures of air attacks were gleefully broadcast with Monday-night-football style commentary, and why war boosters have never felt even slightly disturbed by the torture and killing (deliberate, reckless or negligent) of Iraqi civilians in the years since invasion.

Having the generals briefed to keep them 'on message', in this sense, was nothing more than ensuring they wouldn't spoil the evening's entertainment. I think Glenn's story unintentionally runs the risk of suggesting we should excuse our fellow citizens because they were cruelly mislead - a line that, ironically, much of Big Media was pedalling round about the time of "Golly gee, no WMDs!".

The thing about horse racing, perhaps contrary to what McClelland says about its "agrarian roots" is that it's a wholly artificial sport that exists almost entirely to support the gambling industry.

It's because of the money provided by this industry that racing sees extreme pressure to perform, with compromised results in terms of the welfare of the horses (not to mention the gamblers). The animals are subject to intense pressures, often from a very young age, with their welfare somewhere down the owners' and trainers' order of priorities, to an extent not found in other equestrian sports (with the possible exception of polo). Thus, the substantial risk of the animal being killed or maimed is simply set against against its anticipated winnings, and an actuarial decision made as to whether those will pay back your investment.

All this is done almost completely in order to service the gambling industry. If McClelland really is a "racing fan" and not (a) a gambler or (b) someone working in the industry, he's in a tiny minority. Unless you're one of the above, the whole thing is a pretty sordid and pointless spectacle.

Added to these costs is of course the cost of warehousing the highly toxic waste produced by all these plants for thousands of years. The cost of doing so is simply externalised (i.e., it's assumed the taxpayer will do it), underestimated or ignored. Who's going to pay to run a safe storage facility (assuming we invent one!) for thousands of years? There's no historical precedent for a civilisation, let alone an economy and a stable political system, having been around for long enough to cope with these legacy costs, even if the energy produced were cheaper (taking into account these legacy costs) than renewables or other non-renewable energy sources.

Great article, Glenn. What's the likelihood that any of these points will make it onto the evening news, though - or even into the broadsheets?

It's pretty amazing that Yoo has the chutzpah to defend this situation. What's equally amazing to me is that so few Americans seem to have noticed that we've had our procedural due process rights taken away by executive fiat.

Let's review. Under the Bush doctrine (or should it be the Yoo doctrine or the Gonzalez doctrine?), the executive is capable of secretly and summarily determining that an American citizen is an enemy combatant (based, presumably, on the authority of anyone sufficiently close to the inner circle to pull the strings), secretly detain and expatriate that person (via "extraordinary rendition" and a secret CIA charter aircraft) on that basis, secretly and summarily "try" them (through a secret administrative process that doesn't even have the procedural protections of an "administrative" decision in the common law understanding of that term, and probably involves nothing more than a blanket decision applied informally to a category of detainees). They can be subject to cruel and unusual punishment (including torture, beatings, or even summary execution via the above methods) and indefinite imprisonment in a secret facility (the administration has admitted they hold prisoners at undisclosed locations and at known, but not officially recognized locations, e.g. Diego Garcia, prison ships). At no point from investigation to execution does the administration concede they are obligated to reveal anything about this process.

According to Yoo, who obviously hasn't gotten as far in the "Idiot's Guide to Constitutional Law" as _Marbury_ (or even whatever Blackstone's Commentaries had to say about the Habeas writ), the executive branch can do this if it wants to, and doesn't have to account to the judiciary, or respect Constitutional limitations.

All of which begs the question: if you don't have to know jack s- to get Yoo's job, where do the rest of us sign up for our fat Berkeley law professor salary?