Van makes some interesting points, does he not?

Who is in control here? Perhaps that seems obvious enough, but is there any hope that the people can assert effective control through the system?

If Van had confidence in the electoral system's integrity, would he be so cynical and pessimistic toward our prospects? Or is it that he simply believes consensus can be arbitraily manufactured to suit the powers-that-be, so even voting in a fully honest and reliable system is not worthwhile?

Might it be that the most important politically-oriented jobs in 2004 would be those of elections inspector and pollworker?

What does Van have to say to people like Richard Quigley, who last week said, on KSCO, that anti-war protestors (and I infer, anyone who objects to other government policies) would be more effective to work within the system to achieve worthwhile, lasting change?

Finally, who is Harry Brown and why would he ever bomb Venezuela?