Yikes, the Batman people are responding to criticism about as well as Bill O'Reilly would to a slap at the flag. I don't like violent film. I don't like sadistic violence. Why should I then like a film like The Dark Knight? And why should this bother people so much if they do like such films? Guilty conscience, folks? If the reviewers stepped out of bounds in thier reviews and insulted the audience, I think they made a mistake. But the constant whine that "they don't get it" is also insulting. It is quite possible to "get" a film and still not like it. I "get" the Godfather. I don't like it. I think the people in it are odious punks who should all be lined up against a wall and shot. Their problems and foibles are about as interesting to me as are those of concentration camp guards, i.e., I don't give a fuck about their problems. Same goes for me for Batman and The Joker. I don't empathize with them.

And Captain Kirk, the film "Taiga" is 7 hours long and brilliant. The film "Shoah", although I have some serious trouble with the director's take, is 11 hours long and as close to obligatory watching as a film can get (that they fob people off on the grossly overrated "Schindler's List" so that they can then think they "know" about the Holocaust is a real shame).

I will agree with those that say that the article is weak. However, what can we expect? A second Daniel Ellsberg? Ellsberg was pilloried, threatened with jail, and his psychiatrist's office burglarized for insider info on him. What would happen to him today, post-9/11? Do you think government officials don't get that? No, they (especially the military) leaked like a sive to try and keep Bush under control. Didn't work. And those men and women have since either retired or been hussled off to billets from which they can do the powerful no harm.

We do know this: Bush admitted on national television that he broke the law. Even Elephantman can't dispute that. He said that he deliberately did not go to the FISA court to obtain warrants, in clear violation of the law. He could have, as the law stipulates, started wiretaps on people and sought approval ex post facto--he did not, becasue he wanted to establish that he was ABOVE THE LAW. He has employed the CIA and NSA to spy on American citizens in the United States, also in clear violation of the law (we pay billions for an FBI that is supposed to perform those functions in a legal manner). These are established facts.

What people seem to be looking for is the equivalent of the signed statement by Hitler authorizing the holocaust. We will never see this. Yet the perponderance of evidence indicating that our Constitution and laws have been violated is overwhelming. You can either say, "who cares?" like Elephantman et al., in which case you have abidcated your freedoms, forever, or you can look it squarely in the jaw. In which case, you are forced to consider three options: work within the system to try and change things, take up arms against the system if you feel it has gone too far and no redress is possible, or leave the country. I'm still going with the first choice, but am afraid that my own government will force me to say goodbye to the nation of my birth and object of my loyal affection.

Yes, a point should come, must come, and may come, where I can no longer in good conscience vote for Obama. It may be soon.

But, please, try and anser this for yourself. You are a fiscal conservative. Reagan and Bush II have run up the worst deficits in American history. They have spent money like drunken sailors and failed to shrink government. When do you say, "enough" and vote for an alternative? Or, do you think that McCain will cut spending, shrink government, and balance the budget? And why would you think that? And why, therefore, would you vote for him?

I think that we have two very flawed candidates for president, and that we can overstate the differences between them. The fact is, we are, both sides, getting what our masters want, and this should disturb you as a man with libertarian leanings as much as it bugs me as a social democrat.

Thank you for a most clear and rational answer to my question. I, too, am worried about those court appiontments, and that is what is keeping my hand on the lever for Obama, for now.

I cannot speak for Glenn Greenwald but for me, the feeling is that our national commitment to universal human rights, that came out of our revolution and was reaffirmed most strongly at Nuremberg, may be past reviving. People want to be rich, powerful and safe more than they want to be principled or consistent. They may wish to be consumers more than than they desire to be citizens of a republic. What you may underestimate is that a government that feels is can skirt the law on one thing today may have no scruples about doing something that you find eggregious tomorrow. You as a conservative must understand that government, without a vigilant press and public, is wont to expand its powers to tax, spend, and regulate to the nth degree. Add a heavy dose of secrecy, and you wind up with a dangerous mixture the Founders warned us against. Just wait until the Total Surveillance State uses its powers to ferret out every dime you've made or spent to tax in order to pay for itself and its imperial pretensions. After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why shouldn't the government know everything you do, say, and make?