Actually, that's what Reynolds suggested, in some of his books: a second Renaissance. But since he was a realist, he more often showed that the majority of people either weren't interested in entering the creative class, or simply lacked the ability. And so, most of them spent their time on legal narcotics (including alcohol), and watching TV - which became progressively more stupid and violent, eventually ending up with real (albeit small-scale) wars being fought on camera.

I would happily settle down to full-time writing. But from what I've seen of the rest of humanity...well, as long as there's TV to watch, I really doubt that they'd be writing any sonnets or composing any arias any time soon.

Sure, let's trust that they're telling the truth! It's not like they've ever lied to the public before, after all!

I mean, I could see being a bit doubtful if the CIA had, for example, done something crazy like destroy a bunch of videotapes of torture - forgive me, I meant to use the media-approved term "wet n' saucy spankings" - in defiance of a court order. Then all this paranoia might be justified. But these are our good and wise leaders and protectors; we have to trust them! After all, 9/11!

9/11, 9/11, 9/11. After that, there's nothing more to say!

What will it take to get America back?

The New York Times just published a story: Obama is considering "allowing" prisoners at Guantanamo to plead guilty and be executed without a trial. Why? So that the details of their treatment - i.e. torture - over the past seven years can be kept secret forever.

Obama Weighs Plan Allowing 9/11 Suspects to Plead Guilty - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html

So we took these guys without charging them with any crime, tortured them for seven years, and now we'll "allow" them to plead guilty and be executed. Many will do exactly that. Some want martyrdom, and some just want the torture and imprisonment to end. There have been many hunger strikes and suicide attempts at Guantanamo.

In my book, this places Obama on the exact same moral level as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. He is actively covering up torture, and he'll commit multiple murders to do so (sorry, but just because he's President that doesn't mean that it's somehow legal for him to kill without going through due process). And he won't even allow an investigation to determine if the people he's going to murder are guilty of anything.

Between that and his support of the Graham-Lieberman amendment that would give himself and the Pentagon unilateral power to seize, suppress, and destroy any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." - well, it's clear that Obama has firmly aligned himself with torture, governmental secrecy, and a profound contempt for democracy and the First Amendment.

Republicans can dance in the streets. It turns out their man won, after all. Obama is nothing more than Bush and Cheney wrapped up in a single, better-looking and more-articulate package.

Obama is willing to consider killing an unspecified number of people - let's be honest and call it murder, since it's not going to be the result of due process and it isn't happening on a battlefield or to prevent a crime - solely to cover up the widely-known fact that they were tortured.

Something doesn't make sense here. Everybody except the mainstream media, most Obama supporters, and the vast majority Republicans already knows that torture took place on a secret but certainly widespread scale.

(Yes, that means that the majority of the American people either don't know about or approve of the torture, but that's just a sad commentary which bears out my suspicion that America no longer deserves or will retain a democratic system of government. We're not fit to rule ourselves. But I digress.)

The question is this: why? What does Obama get out of this? Does it make sense that he'd defy both our own laws, and international laws to which the US is a signatory - not to mention every law of conscience - merely to protect Bush/Cheney and their accomplices? That simply doesn't make sense.

No. There has to be something more. But I'll admit that I'm not sure what it could be.

Could it be that the details of the torture are so much more horrific than we can imagine? So horrific that they will even shock the jaded and vestigial consciences of the majority of the American people? Is Obama doing this simply because he doesn't want to be forced by public outcry to investigate Bush/Cheney?

Could he be continuing to commit torture himself, secretly? That would certainly give him a strong incentive to both cover up and immunize torture by the executive branch. This actually explains many formerly-inexplicable acts by Obama and his DOJ. Yes, maybe they want to torture, or are actively doing so.

But why?

Or is there some other possible explanation? So far, I haven't been able to come up with one. But if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be very interested in hearing them!

I guess Hollywood is going to rape, kill, and cannibalize every movie that I loved from my young-adult years. Between this, The Producers, and The Lathe of Heaven...well, it's getting harder and harder to take.

Oh well. At least they can't take away my DVDs.