I recently read the second volume of Robert A. Caro's magisterial biography of LBJ, entitled MEANS OF ASCENT, and from that book I learned to loathe one man, Lyndon Johnson, whose signal accomplishments in civil rights and social justice are difficult to reconcile with his profound character flaws; to admire another, Coke Stephenson, who, for all the baggage of racism and reactionary ideology that came along with his frontier conservatism was, by all accounts, an outstanding, even heroic human being; and to hold in the very warmest regard one woman, Lady Bird Johnson, who, in spite of her paralyzing shyness and the outrageous abuse heaped upon her by her husband, was not only steadfast in her love and loyalty, but also took infinite pains to remake herself, agonizingly, into a successful businesswoman, canny politician, eloquent speaker, pioneering conservationist, important philanthropist, and accomplished public figure of the very first rank.

Gone but never forgotten.

I wouldn't usually comment on something I haven't watched all the way thru, but frankly, the unambitious conventionality of the attempt to reconceptualize Baum's story and the simplistic, one might even say pandering approach to character development, convinced me within five minutes that I could find much more satisfactory ways to spend my time.

In a truly democratic culture, i.e., a society which raises its children to be competent for self-governance, it ought to be a liability for a candidate to be related to someone who's already achieved a position of responsibility. She should have to overcome the suspicion that she's taking advantage of such a connection, or conniving to illegitimately improve her family's fortunes-- perhaps even hoping to establish a dynastic hold on power. True democrats would consider such a possibility to be a strong negative counting against a candidate's suitability.

It speaks volumes about our '"democracy" that Americans seem, instead, to love royalty and admire an arrogant aristocracy, and even, as some do in Chelsea's case, to show a positive craving for dynasty.

I read an online essay not too long ago that pointed to W's fondness for calling stuff "fabulous" as evidence of his secret homosexuality. Works for me. There's got to be a logical explanation for Jeff Gannon, after all. (Or should I say, Johnny Gosch?)

Thanks for another substantive and clearsighted column. But there's one point I'd like to comment upon:

Although "terrorist" may have become a content-free term of opprobrium as commonly used these days, it does indeed have a specific meaning.

In the classic theory of warfare, scorched-earth tactics were seen as barbaric. The indecency of destroying the lives of innocent civilians is apparent to any morally aware person; besides, what victor wants to claim spoils that have been utterly spoilt? Civilized warfare, it was thought, should involve two forces facing off in some isolated venue and hurling themselves at each other until one or the other was vanquished.

But of course civilian populations provide essential support to their militaries, so the temptation is always there to take unfair advantage by undermining that capacity. The solution? Strike at civilian morale. Strike terror into their hearts. This can be done economically and with little risk, compared to wholescale invasion, by using saboteurs, teams of raiders, or, with the invention of aircraft, aerial bombing.

It’s commonly forgotten today that when airplanes were first used in warfare, there were strong objections on the grounds that they were “terror weapons,” intrinsically asymmetrical instruments for raining death upon helpless populations. It was only because modern militaries found them irresistably useful that these contrary voices eventually fell silent. Dogfights were glamorized as chivalrous jousts in the skies. Carpet bombing was a just revenge for buzzbombs. Enola Gay delivered the master stroke against world-threatening tyranny.

And so, the ability of civilized nations to bomb whole nations into submission became standard operating procedure for modern warfare, unexceptionable except to the stoutest pacifist. But make no mistake about it, terrorism is not an ideology, it is a specific tactic, and America is guilty of it, a thousand times over.

We are the terrorists, too.

I think anybody who's engaged in subsistence farming would have a good laugh (assuming they could spare a moment) at the idea that their life is in any way sedentary. One reason why farmers traditionally have large families is because there are never enough hands for all the work to be done.

Ironically, it's the hunter-gatherer societies that are distinguished by their leisure time. With food growing all around them, they only need to spend a few hours a day tending to survival needs, and even those are full of socializing and interaction. When the men bring back game from a hunting expedition, it usually lasts for a good long time before they need to go out again.

The question is why so many humans left behind the luxury of foraging for the rigors of agriculture.

I've long maintained that, in a thriving democratic culture, being related to a political figure would be a definite handicap-- because citizens would always be on guard against any suggestion of nepotism or dynastic ambition.

Reminds me of an observation I read once in one of those silly "How to Get Laid" articles, that the way to spot a gal who'll be great in the sack is to notice how enthusiastically she enjoys life's other sensual pleasures, such as good food, dancing, etc. A good point, I thought. Someone whose basic approach to life is pinched or rejecting isn't so likely to have a fundamental personality change when it comes to sex-- although that certainly isn't unprecedented.