Legislators have made themselves obsolete except as a rubber stamp for laws written by the president and corporations.

Not entirely. There are a large number of exceptions, depending on the issue.

Those persons are mostly, but not completely, irrelevant, because they are not in a position to effect positive change by themselves. They are numerous, but not in the majority, and therefore lack almost any power to effect positive change.

The contest is not between Democrats and Republicans. That's a mirage. The real contest is between 'progressives' and 'conservatives' (read: neoconservatives). That Democrats are presently in the majority is irrelevant, because many of them are conservatives.

What is relevant is that the conservatives are still in the clear majority, and reversal of the present situation and circumstances is impossible until the progressives are in charge.

Imagine: despite what the Constitution says about Congress and the press, we no longer have, in effect, a Congress or press.

Only in effect. The institutions still exist, even if those persons in those institutions who intend to operate Constitutionally are suppressed because of their lack of a majority, and otherwise because of their lack of power to effect positive change.

But they are still there. So long as they are still there, a chance will exist that the situation and circumstances can be reversed within a legislative political framework.

Otherwise all bets are off. So long as congress exists and so long as Constitutional persons are in it, the Constitution is not wholly dead, but only effectively suppressed.

It's that simple: when it comes to being the beacon of liberty, Congress and journalism have made us the laughing stock of the world.

True.

I wrote this last November:

Industrial War Complex

[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]

[Read more letters about this article: Here]

Almost a trillion tax dollars go to the industrial war machine EVERY YEAR. It is the single biggest threat to our constitution, to our nation, and to the world.

The war industry has been publishing pictures about "wimpy democrats" for a long time. Even when they are hawks! This strategy just pushes the whole conversation to their benefit.

It is like the right wing spooge machine claiming all MSM is liberal, even when the real evidence clearly states the opposite. This makes the whole conversation *within* the MSM swing right. The war machine employs the same strategy.

how exactly is that "neocon"?

my posting record stands for what I stand for. You can read my posts for yourself, or just draw conclusions out of thin air. Of course, that is good to do if you can't admit that Gore lost 350.000 democratic votes IN FLORIDA ALONE in 2000... you need thin air to support your conclusions.

I am no neocon. Neither am I republican. Nor am I a democrat.

Are not your only choices. You can choose the wet noodle even though you know "Homeland Security" will simply choose for you. You choosing not to make a choice between those "given" you is not a choice for the whip. Its a choice not to choose between two inferior alternatives.

Its the most pricipled choice I think, though I'm not sure how I will choose (vote). You guys can argue all day long whether or not to uphold all your convinctions or only a part of them. It doesn't matter who is to blame. People who vote for Nader are no more responsible for Bush than are those who voted for Kerry or Gore. At any point and time those people could have voted for Nader. If that small percentage of people could have given you Nader instead of Bush why didn't you? You knew some people would prefer Nader over Gore but you insisted on voting for the Dem candidate. You lost. You lost because and this is the important part, you couldn't convince enough people to vote for who you wanted to win and you refused to compromise by either giving those people (Naderites) another alternative they would find preferable or supporting their candidate. Effectively you said that Bush is preferable to Nader. Its not the minorities responsiblity to give into the majority. If you get four years of McCain it is entirely because you cannot resolve your differences. The blame game doesn't matter. We all end up with the same Prez. I'm not sure my conscious will allow me to vote for Obama. You've already failed by not giving me the progressive candidate I was promised. Now you can choose to push a candidate who sides with the rule of law or not. Its not just my choice, its yours too and you are entirely abdicating your responsibility as a party (Dem) to give me a choice I can accept.

If *you* *really* were concerned about Obama (or not McCain) you'd make darn well sure he addressed some of these issues but you don't. You stick your head in the sand and blame everyone else for why things don't work out the way you want them too. This partisan bickering is old and annoying. If you want to make it us versus them (whether Dems or Greens or Republicans) and blame everyone else you are perfectly entitled to. You will have to live with *your* choices just like I have to live with mine.

if you screw one intern you can be impeached, screw the entire country, parts of the free world and the washington post won't complain

You yourself admit that you arrive in the same place as elephantman.

Neither do you address the points of my argument.

Because you can't.

Next.

Today reading Glenn Greenwald I want to cry. I started in the Kennedy Administration and worked for five more Presidents. Now I am retired and getting older and watching my country go to hell in a hand basket. Everyday of my life I read the Washington Post until I retired and could no longer afford magazine and newspaper subscriptions. When I started reading the Post again on the internet I was shocked by the changes in editorial attitude and the quality of its journalism. The Evening Star in its day was the equal of today's Washington Post. How could this happen? I was born in 1939 and grew up very proud of my country. In 2008 its only promise is in the election of Barack Obama. If a man of his quality and caliber can be beaten by John McCain whose reputation was built on stubbornness, heroism (which is exaggerated) and a foul temper I must conclude that the elephant in the room that's keeping the daily poll numbers so close is racism. There is no other realistic explanation. For the coup de grace one only need Jane Mayer's The Dark Side. If the editors of the Washington Post have read that book and can still waste editorial space on Russia we are lost.