One of my strongest objections to President Bush as a candidate both in 2000 and 2004 was that I am not a fan of dynasties in a democracy. (In every election since 1976, the Republican national ticket has featured a Bush or a Dole.) Mr Blumental's story is the reason that I feel as strongly as I do. Americans specifically rejected these people in 1992; now they are appearing all over the place, once again in positions of power and influence. With Mr Baker playing an unnerving role in the president's Florida victory in 2000, we are being dictated to once more about the direction of this country, a scant few days after once again telling these people -- for the third time! -- that we don't want them. We think they're bad for the country and we don't like their self-serving policies. We sense that their motives are not always in the best interests of America and her people. And yet, there they are.

The worst part about bringing such people back is that they always seems stuck in the period of their being booted from power. So now all of the former President Bush's advisors are going to tell the president how to handle Iraq because. . . they did such a great job the first time around? Notice how the Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld were bound to return the real power to the Executive Office. Why? Because they were there in the Nixon and Ford administrations when Executive malfeasance led the Congress to flex its muscles. And Kissinger is back in an advisory capacity. I sincerely doubt that the bureaucracy of Imperial China had practiioners of such persistent self-interest and cunning.

So, according to The Fix, Katie Holmes is best pals with Beckham (seemingly out of nowhere); now, Cruise is to cast her in a movie, no doubt as a ploy to ingratiate himself to David Beckham. Then, there will be a move to prosleytize a leading sports hero and thus seek to make normal the cult that threatens us all. The forward pace of indoctrination marches on.

After reading Ms Goldberg's book "Kingdom Coming" (in some parts two or three times because I could scarcely believe what I was reading) I now greatly anticipate Mr Hedges' book for its instructional value. I also appreciate Goldberg's questions along the lines of how far can or should the Democrats go in swaying these voters. Even as a gay liberal in Boston (horrors!) I recognize that people throughout the land feel disenfranchised and bereft precisely because those of us with progressive politics made them feel that they were foot-dragging troglodytes, incapable of deciding anything for themselves. If many of these honest and earnest believers look upon urbanites as the ruination of this land, the fault may well lie in the hectoring, condescending, and patronizing tone of liberal policies of the last forty years or so. It can be insufferable at times, having poobahs tell you incessantly what is best for you. This sounds like a retread of the "Democrats-left-me" canard, but there is some truth to it.

It was once easy to laugh at the rubes going to the tent shows, but not anymore. Megachurches preach and those who have been forced to move to some previously untouched part of the country to take some middle-management job at some soulless corporate entity react. (See? There's that condescension again.) Heartland Christians are not instructed to pity the Godless, the wicked, the damned, but to view them as evil. As such, we will have no place in this new dominion, this Christian America. "Fascist" may seem like a strong and overbearing term to use, but when dear old New England, parent to the nation, is lectured nightly and nationally about what it means to be Americans, real Americans, history teaches us that the term is apt. Always besmirch their love of country first; it is a tried-and-true method that always gets results.

I watch award shows more now out of habit than I do out of curiosity or caring who wins. As an Oscar stalker, I've logged about 38 or so without missing one. Now I'm just afraid to break my streak. But the Golden Globes are pretty amusing, and I like how they don't rush winners offstage to make way for some lame-ass production number or performance of some saccharine Phil Collins-penned song. The rationale that the television audience dictates that winners' speeches are "boring" is wrong-headed and insensitive. We're the invited guests. The Globes seem to get it, though I do think the show is helped by not giving out technical awards. It's all stars. The Oscars are so tasteful that they're DOA these days, with all young stars (rare is the sighting of a golden oldie) sporting borrowed jewelry, and palpable grasping for awards (George Clooney as Best Supporting Actor?).

On the one hand I believe that the grilling that contestants get from the three judges can give them a clue as to the brutal treatment that they will get at the hands of avaricious record company executives, music critics, and, most of all, the fans when they turn on you. That changed last week though when I saw the young woman who was accompanied by her mother (both sporting the same haircut, with the mother dark and the daughter blonde). When I saw the look on the mother's face when she realized that they were laughing at her daughter I almost died. It's enough to embarrass yourself, but it is excruciating to see a child being mortified in front of her parent, especially when it is only the parent who realizes what's going on. Deeply unsettling.

I've been seeing things like this on my TiVo for a couple of years now. I've never seen one so network-specific, though. I usually see some lawyer's ad, or aspirin, or something not necessarily related thematically to the network I'm recording. Thanks for posting that -- there is some peace of mind, at least until I start worrying about subliminal messages coming from my TV.