t it will take the first truly shocking revelation (or maybe a few) about Bush era law-breaking

Not to be obnoxious, Arm, but WTF could that be? Footage of Bush sodomizing infants before feeding them, live, to Cheney in his basement lair at the Observatory?

What, exactly, is the media's consitutional function?

I hope you're right.

it's more important to get things done than to fight yesterday's battles.

yes, of course what these people did (or approved or ordered) is despicable and a crime, but you know well how the political world works. i know in your idealist fashion you can only see the trees and not the forest, but realize, there is a lot of work to be done and it can't be done unilaterally. obama and the democrats have to work with republicans and if things are going to get done you don't need to turn the two parties against each other.

as much as i admire your writing, so often you get too caught up in the righteous vision of idealism and miss the reality that pragmatism can accomplish.

When I first went to write this, I was going to object to your characterization of Litt's comments as "petty and vapid." While I'm not sure I accept them now, I think I see where they could be so-called. However, you point out what I was going to argue, namely that he was expressing class solidarity (although you don't put it on those words). This is why I objected to calling his comments "petty and vapid." I'm not convinced that this is the case.

Litt was clearly arguing that the movers and shakers in Washington and their corporate backers are more important than such petty things as rule of law and equal justice. Although these are worthwhile independently of their historical origins, I think it's significant that they were thought up as justifications for bourgeois takeover of government from feudal lords. Clearly, the interests of the ruling elites no longer include accountability or equality. Thus, while Litt himself may have made these comments in a manner that could fairly be characterized as "petty and vapid," the observation itself is, I think, significant in that it continues to reinforce the elite consensus. Namely that the governing class(es) have nothing in common with the governed, and government has a responsibility to look after big people, not little. This consensus is hardly new, of course; what is new is the fact that it is being openly discussed.

Phrases such as "rule of law" and "equal justice" or "equal protection under law" are wonderful, but no longer apply in the same sense as they once did. Rather than being what we can expect, they are now goals to be sought after. Ideals to be restored (although I would argue they were always more goals to be strived for than actual reality).

How the mighty have fallen.

...when both "sides" are corrupt and colluding?

What do you do when the usual method of the citizenry applying political force (namely, elections) fails and only brings more of the same?

What do you do when more of the same wears the label of "change?"

What do you do when your only "trustworthy" avenue of information about the political class is clearly in the tank for the political class, so that your very information becomes suspect?

I've "tangled" with folks on this board about this, but I'm really honestly asking. What recourse is left to the citizenry?

I find it interesting that GG quotes Tom Paine (my real-life namesake). Do we really want to start going down that path? Is it time for a little "Common Sense?"

I have been asking this question for years -- had enough, yet? Had enough, yet? Had enough, yet? -- and always the answer is the same: don't be ridiculous. That's fear-mongering. Only silly tinfoil hat types talk that way. It's interesting that the response should be completely unaffected by the gravity of the charge: in America, you can kill ten thousand and get away without an apology, but if you sleep with a page your political career is over.

Really? Is THAT who we are, now?

Relationship advisers recommend that you set boundaries in relationships; you state that this rule cannot be broken without the relationship being over, and so on. Basically, you have to draw lines in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, or before long you'll find yourself living a sham relationship and wondering how you got here from there. I find it interesting that, as a populace, we seem to have no such boundaries; the temperature of the water is slowly turned up and up and up, and never once are we willing, as a people, to cry foul.

Thought experiment for all of you more literate and clever than me: how can a citizenry throw out an entire corrupt government -- when there is no side, not even the "opposition party," that is not corrupt, when even discussion of the problem is forbidden and "un-serious" -- that does not involve violence?

What, exactly, is the media's constitutional function?

That can be discussed only over postickers. I'd say, tout de suite, except that we live in different states.

If the media truly does its job, public awarenbess forces govt to act.

That is a big if, isn't it?

Let's try a little exercise, shall we?

Close your eyes and imagine you're' 12. Good! Now imagine that you are also a child - let's say 12 just for the ducks of it - who lives in Iraq. Are you there in your happy place? Good. Now imagine that you have no legs or eyes since those US mortars fell on the house and killed your entire family.

Wouldn't YOU want some answers?

And, upon hearing that the man who ordered the troops into your country that bombed your family to death might be investigated by his replacement, wouldn't you really think that was a good idea?

Must learn to stick together and move together for their common good as their enemies are the same ..... the rich and the elite.