I'm a dad, and I love my kids. But I have to say, there's a new breed of parent that does seem to believe their kids belong everywhere. They're sort of like the annoying people who think their dogs belong everywhere, too. I've worked hard to teach my kids manners and self-control. But they don't belong everywhere I go or want to go. I want some adult-only zones myself. I don't like the idea of any place (bars and such excepted) being designated kid-free, but some folks are pushing it to this because they can't/won't control their kids, and can't see how anyone else would mind. Some of these parents obviously need to get a clue, or a dressing down. But in today's "we deserve everything" culture, I guess it's too much to ask some parents to accept certain temporary limitations.

I love my kids with all my heart, but I really don't care to indulge yours when I'm not with mine. I'd also like to say that even more, I wish people would leave their damn dogs at home. The indulgent parents who take their kids everywhere are less annoying than those who take their substitute children, sorry, dogs, everywhere, like the bar, or a gallery opening, or the office. Reality check: Pets are not equivalent to human children. I don't take my kids everywhere all the time, and I take my dog even fewer places: the park, in the car, walks in the neighborhood. But I do let her (the dog) stick her head out the car window. Want to be a parent? Procreate, experience all the joy, fear, hassles, pride, exhaustion, expense, and love, and you'll see the difference between kids and dogs. Apart from the poop thing.

Sidney Blumenthal does a nice job constructing a narrative arc around Cheney's career that seems plausible. Some of the letters I've read seem to walk blithely past the central contention, which is that Cheney et al have a certain view of political power, and how to concentrate and wield that power to the advantage of their particular agenda. It's not so much that Cheney is an evil genius, or Rove or Rumsfeld for that matter. It's simply that within a system of government such as ours (slow, deliberate, prone to direction shifts after elections, etc.), strong and ruthless ideologues can and will find ways to work behind the scenes, to resume their interrupted agendas, and, better, put systems in place that are not subject to the political fortunes of popular elections.

In short, what is portrayed is a lack of faith, which, in many respects, mirrors that of evangelical Christians who, in seeking to institutionalize their faith in our laws, seem to evince nothing so much as their lack of faith that God will take care of everything in his final accounting. Cheneyites, let's call them, don't believe that our representative democracy will adequately address the challenges and opportunies before it. They've sought to create a shadow government immune to the caprice of the ballot box. I think this is why the two constituencies are natural allies. They each, in their own ways, are compelled to be agents of destinies deemed more important than existing institutions or etiquettes.

I don't think most Democrats are falling back on the "evil genius hypothesis" so much as confounded by it. Why can we see these guys for what they are, but neither the MSM nor (until lately) a majority of voters can? Some tactics, belatedly, are being appropriated, like permanent local party organization. Crafting a coherent dialogue to counter the Cheneyite demeanor of the White House has so far proved elusive. We're told it's forthcoming. It is with those Democratic elites that I'm angry, the so-called campaign pros, and the candidates, who bear responsibility for selecting and sticking with them.

But so far, a party united with certain wedge issues based on deep beliefs and a more cynical, realpolitik view of politics has outmaneuvered a party that is more like a herd of cats than anything else. Perhaps it's a sign of a deeper malaise: a real lack of core self-identity that could be, in turn, reduced to easily repeatable sound bites. And if you don't have a core identity (I've read several write, "I vote Democratic for woman's rights," rather than, "I'm a progressive because I believe in economic interventionism," or "a coherent compact regarding social justice and economic security" ... I think Democrats all largely support each other's cause within the cause, but don't really know what to call what it is they stand for on the big stage) you don't have brand identity. That's what it means when Kerry's detractors said "We don't know what he stands for," or, more recently, "They criticize, but what plan do they have?" Dean was popular because he had a clear, strong message and style that resonated with disaffected progressives. But what the Left itself stands for at this moment in history is the real question in play.

Those clearly motivated by God's judgment or dark forces (that necessitate extraordinary countermeasures the US as a whole is too "weak" to sanction) have a lot simpler narrative to act and articulate than does the Left. And a lot more motivation to subordinate "naive" conceptions of government. The cautionary tale Blumenthal delivers is simply a description of the true opponent, its intent, focus, and animus.

Seems to me that most celebrities get as much, or little, attention as they desire. Publicity-shy celebs seem to keep themselves out of the public eye, except when they choose to emerge. So, the celebs who get the press, want the press. And this one has something for everyone ... Adorable girl-next-door starlet loses hearthtrob hubby to freaky dragon lady. Looks to be a publicity win-win for everyone involved, all characters reinforced. There'll be another story soon to enjoy. We won't ever get enough. The demand for new product is constant. Gossip and escapism have to be at least as old as prostitution.