Is it a good thing that the leader of the United States, the country that got rid of the Taliban and--according to its own press releases, at least--is doing so much good in Afghanistan, cannot actually go to Afghanistan except on a surprise visit?

Same with Iraq. Every time a member of the Bush administration makes a surprise jump into Iraq, it's presented to us as a great thing. Brave, even. (Even though most Iraqis are so grateful to us.) How many billions have we spent there? How many years? And yet the president still has to visit on the sly.

Let your senators know what you think about censure. Many, including my own Senator Wyden, have spines that need propping up.

The president broke the law. The law said he needed warrants and he didn't get them (and we still don't know WHO exactly he was spying on). I've yet to hear a legal scholar who says he hasn't broken the law. I've heard a lot of blithering about "inherent authority" from Republicans, but that's just ass covering spin, and everyone, including the people at MSNBC, knows it.

Censure is a modest response to what the president has done, and if the Democrats can't get behind Feingold on this one, we need to find new people to replace them. (ie, Ned Lamont.)

The president's approval ratings are at a record low. Nearly fifty percent of the public didn't even vote for the guy, and he's more unpopular now than he was then. Who are the Democrats afraid of offending? Karl Rove?

Before the election in 2004, we knew about Abu Graib. We knew that Bush had misled us into war. We could see that his tax policy along with his spending for war were a fiscal disaster. We knew that he was a vindictive nimwit who fired people who disagreed with his pinched worldview. We could have been fairly certain that in a second term that he would appoint Supreme Court judges, and those judges would be anti-choice religious zealouts. Where were the good Republicans in 2004?

They were laughing at Kerry because he was a flip-flopper.

For that matter, Kerry rarely if ever spoke about Abu Graib. (That would have made him seem unpatriotic or weak on terror.) He spoke only in the most timid terms about the right to abortion being endangered, because he was afraid of offending religious people. (Because just being a Catholic doesn't make you religious enough to get elected in this country anymore.) He was, like most of the Democratic party, so frightened of what mean Karl Rove would do to him, or what Chris Mathhews might say about him, that he didn't speak up very well for the best that is our country, either.

Or the best that was our country. The Democrats are still timid (too afraid to vote to censure Bush) and the Republicans in Congress are so pleased with having a king of their own party that they don't care that the administration has eviscerated their powers. The wealthier Republicans in my neighborhood are still satisfied that their taxes haven't gone up, and a few celebrate their victory in 2004 to keep gays from marrying. Mission accomplished. In the next election, they will be thinking about taxes, and maybe banning gay adoption. McCain will be a staunch ally of the president, Chaffee will still be a chunk of styrofoam, and Democrats better learn to stand up and fight, now, or things will not get better.

This was an interesting article. I studied theater and understand the frustrations well, so I was waiting for the inevitable, "Goodbye, cruel world, I'm off to enjoy a steady, lucrative career in...." In what? Banking? Advertising?

No, writing. Wow! Way to go, Mr. Birkenhead. You've chosen a profession with a slightly higher rate of success than acting, but with all the financial insecurity. Of course, with writing you are not so much a vessel as a creator, so when you experience rejection as a writer, you get the sweet experience of having a feeling of your business peers not liking either you or your ideas. Informing you of this rejection, your agent will tell you, "You are a great writer."

And at dinner parties, when you tell people you are a writer, they will ask, "What have you published?" And when you tell them, their eyes will glaze and an awkward smile will tremble on their lips. Unless you're one of the lucky ones, of course, like Stephen King or John Grisham or that guy--what's his name?--who wrote Adaptation. Or maybe you'll find luck as a utility writer, and get a steady job writing a series. Or semi-steady. Enough to cover health insurance sometimes.

I'm a writer. I'm not a "name." I'm just trying to make a living. After twenty years or so of sometimes struggling, I wouldn't give it up for anything. It sounds like Mr. Birkenhead is a good actor--maybe a great one--who had a lot of success on the stage and some in Hollywood. One good thing about writing is that it's portable. My advice would be, keep acting and writing. You obviously have a talent for both, but a passion for acting.

Good luck!