I have railed against the use of the word "war" in describing GWB's oversized SWAT operation in Iraq because it legitimizes his image as a "war-time president" and enables the criticism of opposing opinion as something that shouldn't be aired "in a time of war." It's a loaded word that summons images of great unified national effort and of a clear threat from a definable enemy; the neocons have used it very effectively since 9/11 and the Iraq invasion to further their agenda of consolidating power in the presidency, enriching Halliburton, etc.

But the word "war" is biting them in the ass, too. It's only a matter of semantics, sure...but when you keep calling something by a name that carries with it certain underlying assumptions, those assumptions tend to get muddled into the reality the word is misused to describe. A war, historically, occurs when two enemies face off over an issue or some land and fight it out. At the end of the violence there's a winner and a loser -- though more likely than not both sides lose more than either gains. Islamic fundamentalism, however, isn't a thing. It isn't a place or a country. It's as much a state of mind as anything. And you can't wage war, in the most common and time-honored sense of the word, against an idea. So, the neocons set themselves up with a nice "war" that can't be won through violent means. But violence is the only tool in their arsenal. The populace is waiting on the sidelines for a victory to be declared, since after all we have all the planes and bombs and night-vision goggles. The question is, how long before enough people realize victory through violence will NEVER come, and start insisting the conflict be settled by other means?

Make sure you go back and read "Water Music," which he wrote when barely more than a wee bairn.

I just flew United, BUT-DEN-BUR, with an upgrade to "Economy Plus" for 34 bucks per seat. The 5" or so added leg room made it a very comfy/relaxing trip for tall me and my tall son. An upgrade to first would have cost I don't even want to think how many multiples of 34 bucks. There are a few rows in the middle of the plane with the extra leg room. I thought it was very cool.

Just FWIW, FYI

Yeah? Give me Stephen Colbert or even George Bush malapropisms any day. Rooftop is so seriously into cool or irony or "the meaningfulness of meaninglessness"or whatever it is that their head has disappeared up their tailpipe.

I guess what I'm saying is...not to my taste.

I continue to shake my head in bewilderment as Democrats characterize Democratic lawmakers who voted to give George W. Bush the authority to use force – if necessary – in dealing with Saddam Hussein as having “voted for the war” or “authorized the war,” and subscribe to the notion that they are now unable to speak out energetically against the war as a campaign issue.

This, in a word, is hogwash.

Bush was given a bargaining tool with the understanding that he would use it judiciously. He did not, even remotely. Yet this mass political neurosis persists, wherein no one who voted him the big stick is allowed to criticize the rash and incompetent way in which he used it.

One can only assume that what keeps this taboo alive is fear that the Republicans will resurrect the “flip-flopper” label they used so effectively on Kerry in the last election. Why Kerry failed to trumpet the distinction between someone who authorizes the use of force-when-all-else-has-failed and someone who says, “Let’s start a war, now, without further ado,” is utterly beyond me. That Clinton and other Democratic hopefuls still trim their rhetorical sails is a testament to the Karl Rovian genius for dictating the terms of the debate, even after his side has completely blown it.

We have the Puritans and Hugh Hefner to thank, I suppose, for turning the female breast into this heavy-breathing object of adolescent (of the perpetual type) desire. But there it is: in the U.S., breasts are nasty. Nowhere else, but here, yes. What a shame.

That said, there are two kinds of women who breast-feed in public, in my humble opinion. The "My baby needs to eat," variety, and the "In your face," variety. There are ways of breast-feeding a child that maintain a nice balance between privacy and necessity -- and then there are the exhibitionist/feminist/adversarialists who want to prove that no one can stop them from flouting the wonderfulness of their motherhood. Those, frankly, I can do without. They're the same ilk that think it's good parenting to let their four-year-old scream and shout during a night crossing of the Atlantic. "Look at me, I'm a parent -- it's the most wonderful thing I've ever done and I want you to be aware of it!!" Phooey.

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that it would be hard to find a voter who is/was influenced by an important newspaper -- or even a home-town rag -- that takes a stance on a given candidate or issue. We're bombarded by so many points of view, such an avalanche of factoids and mendacious hyperbole, why not ask those who are in the business of assimilating it all and hopefully arriving at an informed point of view to give us some guidance? I know I have at times, so there's one voter right there.