War. No. End.

There are days when my anger and frustration with what remains of the American "experiment" hit such violent lows that whatever chair I happen to be occupying is in danger of becoming kindling -- even the metal chairs. I've destroyed many chairs in my time, kicking and stomping them into splinters, throwing the larger remnants against the wall while unleashing hideous, primal screams as my monkey brain clicks on and I jump around, reduced to a sub-evolutionary state suitable only for football tailgaters, NASCAR gatherings, or some contemporary country musicpalooza. My political Hulk is an unreasonable beast, and over time I've lessened his influence and subdued his destructive urge. But he can still pop out at any time, and like Bruce Banner, I must maintain control before my pupils dilate, my shirt and pants begin to rip, and broken chairs begin flying.

Chaos and death continue in Iraq, and this past weekend has been most brutal. You've seen the headlines and the accompanying wire photos of smoldering, twisted metal and blasted bodies, some wrapped in bags, others not, with pools of blood spreading everywhere. Political machinations continue, of course, both in Baghdad and in DC, where there is, so far, token Dem resistance to Bush's upcoming "surge." (Afghanistan is not much better, but that's for another day.) Libs across the land keep pointing to the polls and to last November's midterms, insisting that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to any escalation in Iraq. Maybe they are, but I suspect that this opposition is tepid at best, at least when it comes to the great mass of Americans, who are, by design and by choice, largely apolitical and ahistorical. They don't like bad news, and that's all that's coming out of Iraq.

If this present war went down as easily as the first Gulf engagement in 1991, we'd probably see the same high pro-war poll numbers, tickertape parades and "Salute Our Conquering Heroes" TV specials. I remember that period very well, for I was right in the middle of it all. And some of the biggest celebrations took place in lower Manhattan, with office workers pouring out of buildings, chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" Had Bush, as many of his liberal critics urged, invaded Iraq with a massive show of force and slaughtered three, four, five times the number of Iraqis who even glanced at US troops with a frown, and controlled the larger cities with an iron, Saddamist fist, think the negative poll numbers would be as high? Christ, people would be jacking off at Bush's feet, praising his toughness and resolve. And naturally the Dems would yank meekly along, maybe quietly suggesting a raise of the minimum wage so the working poor could afford an extra meal at McDonald's -- from the 99 cent menu, of course.

An ugly scenario, to be sure. Perhaps even uglier than the reality we currently face, if that's possible. The reason I even entertain such chilling thoughts stems from various sources of late, most recently a local radio show that I'd never before heard until Sun morning, and an item in today's Indianapolis Star.

The radio show, hosted by someone named Michael Stein, and broadcast by WDTW-AM, Detroit's "Progressive Talk," has to be one of the more idiotic offerings I've encountered since reading Kos' take on political philosophy last week. Stein, from what I heard, is one of those anti-PC rightwingers who "tells it like it is," in his case, from a shallow, polluted pond of ignorance and arrogance. Stein not only believes that "we" can still win in Iraq, but challenges "the left" to articulate a better policy. None of the callers could sway him from his stance, though truth be told, they weren't in full command of any passing facts of the matter. One self-described moderate backed Bush's coming escalation, saying that the extra bodies would act as protectors for those beleaguered troops already on the frontlines. Stein barked back that the US goal was not protecting other troops, but to win the war and secure the peace "before" civil war erupts, "before" Islamic fanatics establish a foothold, "before" Iran and pro-Iranian elements begin influencing events in Iraq.

I know that a lot of truly stupid people have access to microphones and cameras in the United States, but this guy blows past the average. For a moment, I thought I was experiencing aural hallucinations, so unfuckingbelievable was Michael Stein's rant. Then I saw, according to WDTW's schedule, that Stein's show is paid programming, which explains his appearance on Sunday mornings. But I wonder if Detroit's "Progressive Talk" will put on any viewpoint in exchange for money, or simply lunatic reactionaries like Stein? In a sense, you can't blame the station. Not only do they get paid, but they feature someone who makes their regular line-up of Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes appear forward-thinking. Not a bad racket.

Still, know-nothings like Stein are more common than not, regardless of media reach. I was reminded of this when reading about college students in Indiana who remain, at this late date, "ambivalent" about the Iraq war. Some quotes:

"College students honestly don't know what should be done. We don't know what should be done. We don't like what's being done, but we don't have any better ideas."

"In class, it is not something people really want to talk about that much because it's such a sensitive topic."

"[P]eople are so tired of hearing about it. We just want whatever makes it over."

And of course, there's always a young optimist:

"I know mistakes were made, but reconstruction always takes time. It will definitely show more results. It's a good start, and we should be able to see progress at least."

See why I left Indiana all those years ago? The place can still turn your mind into quick-drying cement.

To be fair, there's a lot of this in Michigan, a somewhat bluer state. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this makes up the majority of discussions and thinking about Iraq nationwide. For all the hype about how the majority of Americans are against this war, when was the last time you heard, either on talk radio or in your everyday life, a serious, historically-based statement or exchange about what's going on? This is why I remain suspicious about those supposedly "antiwar" polls. And if American antiwar feeling is more surface than depth, then where does that leave us, especially with more war on the horizon? I'll try to answer this tomorrow as I look at some "educated" online political opinion, where Walter Lippmann's "manufacture of consent" is more popular than ever.

But for now, please excuse me. There's a wooden stool that's just asking for it.