Pish posh, says I. It sounds like your real beef is that these folks don't agree with your take on Iraq. After all, would you really feel better if they did "pull together a one-sided panel discussion involving his fellow Republicans Bill Kristol and Ann Coulter, moderated by Brit Hume"? I think not. Whether you agree or disagree about the war, the Bush admin is about more than the war (as strange as that may seem) - for example the Faith-Based Initiative has had a large impact on that seemingly forgotten sector (yet largest, in terms of fundraising) of the nonprofit world - churches. Most foundations are founded by wealthy individuals, who skew a little more to the right than the general population (although that has been changing in recent years). Most foundation staff members skew more to the left of the population. This means that the foundations that were started by the biggest knuckle draggers (Ford and Pew, among others) have now essentially become far more progressive than their founders would wish - which does *not* square itself with donor intent at all. Maybe these foundations aren't talking about the war because many of the founders agree with the administration - you may not like that, but it's certainly their perogative, and is in no way "disgraceful." That certainly seems more likely than the mythical notion of people being "cowed by a political environment that demonizes dissent." If that was the case, then we wouldn't be able to read your post, because you would have been cowed. (It's sort of like that time when Tim Robbins declared to the National Press Club that dissenters were being swatted down - seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was addressing the National flippin' Press Club.) If these people are being cowed, then the cowers aren't doing a very good job on the cowees.