I don't regard us as a nation of hysterics. The neo-cons certainly are, but most of us are smarter than they are.

But Americans do like war - not the fact of war but the idea, the mythology of war and violence. From the end of the 19th century (actually earlier) through about 1970, western novels, movies and TV mythologized our experience of the American frontier. (The western genre in all those media dominated all others.) In that mythology, violence is the answer to most if not all problems and it takes a white male hero of moral clarity fighting for good against the forces of evil (who often have brown skin)to win the day. Reread that last sentence and ask yourself how much of it describes George Bush, his administration, the war in Iraq and the neo-con take on world affairs.

In 1941, a University of Chicago psychoanalyst named Franz Alexander opined that the ending of the frontier experience in America would result in our becoming fixated on it as a culture. I would argue that he was correct and I think the neo-cons and the Bush Admin bear this out. Think of them as actors in a western movie in which Muslims are Apaches and it all begins to make sense.

Yes, I had noticed the fact you mention - that the action in westerns always exists outside or on the edge of where civil authority has the power to protect. Interesting too, in that light, is the fact that our westward expansion did just that; it took us into areas in which there was little or no civil power, thus begetting the (mythological)need for an autocrat.

One other thing you'll notice in the western genre is the extremely flexible concept of who is evil. Indians, white outlaws, bankers, railroads, etc. can all be bad guys, so why not Islam?

Also, the landscape of the Middle East reminds us enough of the desert southwest that numerous Bible movies were made in southern Utah and northern Arizona.

I appreciate the book reference, so here's one in return. Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America, by Richard Slotkin. He's an academic at Wesleyan University.

he's 16. Why isn't this statutory rape by her?

America was a frontier nation. That is our history and it is our single defining myth. Our conscious mythmaking started early, as Faludi notes, but it only really became obsessive at the closing of the frontier toward the end of the 19th century. Then came the wave of novels by Owen Wister, Zane Grey, Louis L'Amour and countless others which have sold vastly more than any other genre. After that came the movies, first silents, then talkies, and again the western genre far outsold all others. Finally came TV which again saw westerns garnering Nielsen ratings far above any other type of programming. As U. of Chicago psychoanalyst Franz Alexander foretold in 1941, we are fixated on our lost frontier. That is why we mythologized it so doggedly over almost a century. And that is why we were in Viet Nam and are in Iraq. The movies (and novels,and TV) posited every enemy as implacable evil which had to be defeated and could only be defeated by a white male hero of moral clarity and steadfast determination. That is why we elected Bush the Texan and not Kerry. Bush the mythical figure (obviously not the actual man) is John Wayne, al Qaeda is the Apaches and Osama bin Laden is Geronimo.

Our history formed us and our mythology instructs us - wrongly of course but there it is. We will see this again and again. The western cowboy may have been replaced by the urban cop (see, Jack Bauer) in our dominant mythology, but the theme remains. (Kiefer Sutherland for President?)

I didn't mean to imply that he was a 19th century writer. In fact none of the writers I mentioned published in the 19th century. The frontier "closed" at the end of the 19th century (if you believe Frederick Jackson Turner) or the beginning of the 20th century if you believe others. The great body of mythmaking came in the 20th century although obviously some came before.

with the worst administration in history and a Congress to match, and face another year of the same. Is it any wonder a true-believing libertarian like Paul is getting this type of support?

Not one word about money. All the things Scherer says are true, but the article is all about why some people can't vote or their votes won't be counted. Those considerations frankly pale in comparison to the money issue. The fact is, due in no small part to the parties' frontloading of the primaries, the person with the most money wins. Period. Issues don't matter, experience doesn't matter, character doesn't matter. Money matters. That's the problem with the primaries (and the actual election itself) and until it gets fixed, we will not have true democracy in the U.S.

that pitching wins baseball games, particularly in the playoffs. If it's June and the opponent is the Devil Rays, maybe all it takes is hitting, but in October you don't win without really good pitching. The Yanks don't have it. Wang is good sometimes; Pettite is good sometimes, but beyond that their starters aren't playoff caliber. Rivera is nothing like his old self. Torre can't take the mound himself. He shouldn't be blamed for management's failures.

others call "seniority." Part of the difference between men's and women's earnings has always been greater male seniority due to the fact that women have always been and still are underemployed. As women work more, they'll get paid more. As they work longer, they'll accumulate seniority. Failure to do those things, though, will continue the status quo.