and almost everything to do with propaganda. After Eisenhower, both parties realized that mass media would be the sole decider of elections, and so the art of media "spin" was born. If you read political statements and editorials even from up till the Carter administration, you'll see they are clumsy, but with an ever-growing Madison Avenue "twist."

But the Repubs made huge advances in propaganda under Reagan, and have apparently reached the pinnacle under Bush II. Hence their ongoing success. The fact that they lost Congress in 2006 and that Bush's approval rating is in the 30's does not mean they've lost this edge. It simply means their blunders and power-grabbing have exceeded even their ability to paint it in rosy terms.

So in my view, the past 30 years have nothing to do with ideology or cohesiveness or the weaknesses of candidates. The explanation is that the Repubs have had much better propaganda. How else do you convince the majority of Americans so consistently to vote against their own interests?

So sadly, until some progress is made in controlling the slant of information given to the public, the game will always be won by the team with the best propaganda. For the past eight years, that has not been the Dems, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them lose the White House again in 2008. They've got loads of ammunition, but far too few are willing or able to pull the trigger. You can't win a war that way.

I've always found SZ to be far better than other critics. More honest, more observant, more analytical, and more reliable, but resulting in many negative or even biting reviews. I am suspicious that this has changed though, perhaps an attempt to placate the readers.

And yes, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I have long avoided movies that SZ has panned. Most of what Hollywood puts out is not worth seeing, and Stephanie has been the best filter I have ever found.

Most other movie critics (on the payroll of some media conglomerate, if you trace the money back far enough), cannot be trusted. So the 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes means nothing, at least not to me.

How I long for the days when I could count on SZ to trash movies that deserved it. Apparently the cranks, who all these years have complained that she was too harsh, have succeeded in convincing either her or Salon that she is in fact too hard to please. This is a disaster.

Now she writes lukewarm reviews that neither cheer nor jeer. After rereading her review of the "TBU" I still can't tell if she really liked it. Reading between the lines of her review, we can draw the following conclusions:

a. The movie is all action and little or no plot.

b. It follows the exact same formula as it's two predecessors, though perhaps is done slightly better.

c. The entire premise is nonsense, but we're not supposed to notice.

In the old days, as I remember them, Steph Zach would have said this explicitly, then closed with a biting paragraph concerning Hollywood's wholesale waste of talent, film, and perfectly good automobiles. And I would have confidently ignored requests from friends and family to accompany them to see this movie because they had "heard it was good."

Alas for the old days.

I have no doubt that a hundred years from now, high school children will study the year 2007 and be utterly mystified as to why Bush was allowed to get away with deceiving the public, invading another country on false pretense, ignoring the Constitution, and committing war crimes. Our entire population will look complicit, because we as individuals either supported Bush (the Repubs), or refused to even attempt to censure him (the Dems, obviously). Cindy Sheehan is, I believe, simply trying to drive this point home.

The Dems have an overwhelming arsenal at their fingertips to attack Bush and take him to task, all the way to impeachment, if necessary. It's an arsenal far beyond any ever held by an opposing party. Yet they pretend not see it. We can only assume that means that either they have no idea what to do (a so-called failure of imagination), or that in truth they serve the same masters as the Repubs do. Hard to say which is worse.

Though I usually agree with Joan Walsh word for word, I can't this time. I believe every true American, from ordinary citizen, to editors, to the Speaker of the House, has a duty to pursue the crimes committed in the past seven years. We owe that to all the people who worked to found this country and maintain its ideals, and to future generations, who will live in a different world for sure if Bush/Cheney skate free. I believe that's what is driving Ms. Sheehan to prod Nancy Pelosi.

Also, it's not as if working toward censure or impeachment will allow no other business to proceed. The Dems can still pursue a broad agenda in preparation for 2008. But keeping the word "impeachment" in the news can only help them come the next election.

A sad, sad failure of imagination.