It's true as you say that the institutions - Congress and the press - that we depend on, respectively, to restrain a president and government are still in existence, but you agree they're ineffective at their jobs. The way I see it, effect is what it's all about. The institutions themselves are becoming mere shells, form without content.

It's also true, as you noted, that they're not completely moribund,but while power has swung back and forth between Congress and president since the founding of the nation, I fear that these times are different - the shift of power to the president is being rapidly institutionalized, largely because Congress and the press are ineffective. Given the voters' very poor use of the information that's freely available, evidenced in elections, I'm not at all sure the trend towards authoritarian government will be reversed. Yes, it's possible, but only if voters start educating themselves, and I don't see much of that happening - at least when it comes to Congress.

In fact, the institution of education has become so ineffective that I doubt the average voter knows much of what s/he's voting on, understands the Constitution, or values the role of the press. Combine a generally inadequate education with all the distractions our consumerist society offers - just change the channel! - and you have half of the voters not really paying attention, a quarter of them actually liking the abrogation of the Constitution (at least until the authorities come for THEM), and a quarter outraged but virtually impotent to stop it all.

Politicians focus on the voters with ADD, and the key there is to appeal to the lowest common denominator - in other words, the best image maker wins. Make it short, sweet and simple; pandering works real good; and fear-mongering works even better, whether it's fear of some imagined enemy or of the other candidate. Pound your message in - 30 seconds max - and then let'em get back to American Idol or change the channel. Works every time. (I hope I don't sound elitist - I'm just going by what I see happening. I hope I'm underestimating voters.)

We can't have a democratic republic in those circumstances. It's gotten so bad in the last few decades that I half-wonder if some Great Plan was hatched to dumb down the masses and thus perpetuate what documentarian Adam Curtis called "The Trap".

You're obviously more optimistic than I, and more power to you - I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But then what do you think is going to happen to reverse this downhill slide?

* Maybe this is indeed just one of the cyclical swings of power, and the nation will right itself sooner or later? But can the nation just *do* that, like it's on automatic pilot and course corrections happen via the collective unconscious?

* Some quick, mass awakening of consciousness? How would that happen in current circumstances?

* Somehow progressives will gain a majority in Congress despite the gerrymandered districts, prostrate press and special interest campaign financing (known anywhere else as bribes)?

* Maybe a gradual dawning of awareness of what is happening to the Constitution and thus the nation, and thus people's own welfare, liberty and future? But don't you think that gradual wouldn't be fast enough given the speed with which Congress and the press have hand-delivered power to the president, power that not even Obama (his FISA vote) seems to reject?

* Maybe the courts will step in and rule a host of congressional acts and presidential appropriations of power unconstitutional. There are signs that even a few conservative judges are looking critically at this situation, but are a few going to be enough, especially given the state of the appeals and Supreme courts? In fact, the separation of powers is so shredded now that rulings striking down such things as FISA, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the other various and sundry acts and executive orders and signing statements would amount to a virtual court coup d'etat. I'd love to see it but...

Any ideas on how this accretion of power to the president is going to be not just stopped but reversed?

If the anthrax did indeed originate at Fort Detrick, then if it wasn't Ivins, someone else there was the original source. That person or persons either made it or stole it, and either mailed it themselves or gave it to the people who did mail it.

So is it pretty convincing the anthrax came from Fort Detrick? From what I've read, it seems to be.

Because if so, there are two compelling things going on here:

1. The investigation into the identity of whoever at the lab provided or sent it.

2. More important to me is the fact that the federal government itself is proving that the anthrax had nothing to do with Iraq or bin Laden, unless someone at the lab worked for or cooperated with their agents. Given the intense security surrounding that base and that lab, I think it's just as likely that US government agents were ordered to commit literally a terrorist act to help push the nation into war. (Am I being paranoid? Is it possible to be paranoid in the face of the Bush administration's criminality?)

In a way, it's commendable that the FBI, one of the most compromised federal agencies, seems to be on the verge of proving Bush-Cheney to be liars and possibly themselves instigators of terrorism, even if separated by layers of subordinates from the direct issue of orders to mail anthrax and thus terrorize the nation into aggressive and baseless war.

Do the facts of the case seem to be heading this way?