Why You Shouldn’t Read This

Back in the day (the summer I worked on a dairy farm), we would have put the stuff in a spreader and headed for the pastures, where it would at least have had the possibility of doing something constructive. The blogosphere’s utterly unedited nature is both its blessing and its curse, I think. Unfortunate that the Useful Idiot phenomenon is such a powerful factor, and that ideologues can be so goddamned gullible. While I might be instructed not to believe anything, including Adam’s blogentating, Adam is cursed with a level of intellectual honesty and capacity for informed insight that I will have to continue to respect what he has to offer. Sorry, Adam, but your disclaimer ain’t gonna work.

While waiting for Adam to return, I thought I’d share this gem of an e-mail that was just forwarded to me—I’m afraid it originates from a friend of my Dad’s, but I’m hoping not:

WEATHER BULLETIN Up here, in the ” Mile-Hi City “, we just recovered from a Historic event— may I even say a “Weather Event” of “Biblical Proportions” — with a historic blizzard of up to 44″ inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10’s of thousands. FYI: George Bush did not come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one blamed the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit. Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else. Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either. CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards. No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House. No one looted. Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something. Nobody expected the government to do anything, either. No Larry King, No Shepard Smith, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found. Nope, we just melted the snow for water. Sent out caravans of SUV’s to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars. The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn’t ask for a penny. Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families. Families took in the stranded people - total strangers. We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns. We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is “Work or Die”. We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for ’sittin at home’ checks. Even though a Category “5″ blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

Words can’t express how disgusting this comparison is. What kind of self-satisfied, ignorant ass would compare the blizzard in Denver to the floods in New Orleans? I need a drink. And a shower.

Re: Hurricane Katrina vs Denver multi-snows

You can’t deny the similarities. They were both weather phenomena that affected major cities.

Of course, if you live in a major northern city, you know that all you have to do is wait out a snowstorm. The chance of your home being destroyed is virtually nil (unless Lars imbibes too much “anti-freeze” and runs the big snowplow thru your living room). You don’t have to evacuate. Your possessions are safe. And all the excess water eventually melts and goes away, often without the help of the Army Corps of Engineers. Congratulations to the Denver resident quoted above for figuring all of this out on his own.

BTW, I’ve decided that it’s silly for me to have a rear-wheel drive compact here in Chicago-land. The next car has to be FWD or AWD.

Adam, if your point was, “You can’t trust anyone, due dilligence is always a good idea” then I’d agree with wholeheartedly. Instead, you post, in your standard comic tone, claims that “blogs can’t be trusted”.

I mean, no shit?

Come on.

Do you have examples that discredit the left side as strongly as the right? If so, I’d love to see them. It might even be an eye opening experience however, my guess is, you don’t have those examples. Instead you offer up a platitude “don’t trust blogs” then present an example of how the wingnuts have, once again, shit all over themselves.

I don’t know Adam. I’ll grant you the possibility that you are so much smarter and more subtle than I am that I just missed the intellectual message or the humour in the post. It’s possible but for now, I don’t see it. If you or anyone else wants to be gracious enough to educate me here, I’ll listen.

So I thinking that the next time you decide to drop a load on everyone, you might want to build a case that actually indicts everyone.

Or just be funny.

For a guy with gigs on Faux and NicePoliteRepublicans, to be slamming bloggers, many of whom (or is it “who”, fuck, I was an art major, not lit) are producing solid reporting work and responsible opinion backed up with fact, I think you do them a disservice. You certainly aren’t coming from any higher moral ground yourself.

So Adam, what was your point again? Oh, “So hear me now, and hear me well - you can’t trust blogs. Especially not this one.”

Indeed.

Adam, I’m afraid I’m gonna’ have to keep reading you.

I know, I know, you said not to, and I am compelled to believe and follow the Mighty Bloggy Dictate™ unquestioningly, so I should stop, but–I have a loophole!–I am also cultured to react to blogged cries for action by fuming and then sitting back helplessly/uselessly to keep doing what I was doing before an M.B.D.™ came down. It’s, uh, kinda’ crucial to my identity as an internet-addicted blogger, you know? And I gotta’ keep it real.

So, I can promise to try to maintain a feeling of conflicted guilt about it, for a while, but that’ll probably fade. I need my fix, after all.

Anyway. In all seriousness, thanks for writing, man. I love it here.

As Groucho Marx almost said, I’d never trust any blogger who would have his readers trust him.

Adam,

I have to say that when it mattered most, the fourth estate was awol. On a previous thread, I did put a link to an impressive piece by Cokie Roberts and her husband, in part because it surprised me. I’ve been following NPR since its inception, which doesn’t make me some kind of expert, but it does make me an observer of NPR for my entire adult life, and what I have seen there and in the fourth estate in general has left me both disenchanted and distressed. There are some pockets of actual journalism in the service of the civil body politic, not the power centers, that are emerging, not the least of which are Democracy Now, Keith Olbermann’s program, some of the work at Newsweek, the NYT, and the WaPo. And there are some damned good grunts out there.

But missing thus far from this thread is the nature and role of the ownership of the major media. The other extremely important ingredient is the editors. I am at this point generally, though not universally, disillusioned by these folk as keepers of the fourth estate, with, as I suggested, some notable exceptions.

I do share your concern that relentless blasting of the media from both ends of the spectrum, like the relentless blasting of politicians and lawyers, does produce a certain amount of unhelpful toxicity, but I also understand ice weasel’s anger at the abject failure of the media on some of the most crucial, destruction-wreaking developments at the onset of the 21st century.

My own feeling is that the right wing noise machine bloggers will follow Bush over the cliff. It is tragic that they will take so many more lives, Iraqi and American military, with them. Left wing bloggers I judge for how intellectually honest and well informed they seem to be. Mostly, I demand reason, factual accuracy and comprehensiveness, and a capacity for insight. For these, I have to turn most often to books, websites, foreign journalism, C-Span, and FA, the brightest little light in the blogosphere.

Adam wrote, “And there’s no Game Plan here, is there?”

I respond…
Game plan? Mine? Sure, I have a game plan. My friends and pool our resources and start buying up radio stations building an empire that will spread liberal disinformation throughout the country and, hopefully, turning American into a haven for commie policies and lefty moral values.

But seriously, what game plan can I have? I’ve spent years writing letters, petitioning stations, the government and speaking out whenever I could hoping that some semblance of journalistic standards would prevail. I dontate, I volunteer and whenever I can, I add in how I think it might be better. You know what that’s gotten me don’t you?

Adam wrote, “At least not for liberals.”

I respond…
I think you’re ignoring the larger context Adam. What liberal game plan would like to see? Air America was, at best a flawed project and an idea that while addressing some concerns, in my opinion, is just the reflection of the right’s mistakes. And look what happened there. Corporate interests secretly plotted bankrupt them. And it worked. That’s not tin foil hat territory, that’s bloody documented history. So tell me what you think the game for liberals should be. I’m serious. If someone has the answer, I’m open to hearing it.

What I do know is that the current system doesn’t work, for me and for many like me.

Adam wrote, “When nobody trusts the press anymore, the autocrats on the right WIN. “

I respond…
Actually, I would alter that somewhat. When the system is rigged so that the autocrats always win, the autocrats win. That’s why it’s important, no, critical that a free press not be simply a tool of the same corporation and political interests. And really, even that isn’t enough. And perhaps that why I think blogging, and whatever will follow afterwards has the potential to serve us better. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not saying I’m perfect but I am saying I know what doesn’t work.

Adam wrote, “When I mention this to liberals, they usually mutter something about wanting to improve the news media, not kill it. [Except for the occasional fanatic who somehow believes that bloggers themselves can somehow carry the load of actually reporting on actual events] “

I respond…
Two things.

First, tell me what else you see in your crystal ball because as much as I think I know about the future I have no idea where responsible journalism, journalism which serves the people of this nation is going to come from.

Hey, call me an agnostic fanatic. I don’t know where the solution is coming from but I have a very good idea where it won’t come from. I also know where a lot of reality emanates and it’s not printed in the WaPo or the NYT (those liberal bastions of conservatism) and it’s certainly not coming from the WSJ. So where?

Adam wrote, “But there is no plan, the horrifying discrediting continues, and the public’s faith in the news media has now dropped to terrifyingly low levels.”

I respond…
Is that my fault? Is it the fault of my little blog that has maybe two dozen regular readers? Is the fault of all liberal blogs?

Come on Adam, you’re not being realistic or even maintaining a sense of proportion here. Perhaps if the public’s opinion of the news media is low it’s because that media sucks.

Now, if you want explore why it sucks, fine. Let’s have that discussion. But blaming it on me and other liberal bloggers is ridiculous.

Adam wrote, “So low, as I said, that an obvious fuck-up like George W. Bush could win the election in 2004.”

I respond…
Horseshit.

bush won the first election because it was rigged that way. It was close enough to be rigged for a number of reasons, two of which might be that the person running against bush ran a fairly lackluster campaign and the second, and I think vastly more important reason is, the news media, as a whole, never really took the time to lavish half the attention on bush that it did on his opponent. Gore got fucked going in every direction throughout that campaign (just as Kerry did four years later).

There’s more than enough blame to go around but little of it, I think, has to do with a general disaffection with the media. Rather it was the media’s constant refrain about impotent, lying Democrats.

Adam wrote, “Liberals tell me that the relentless, even habitual hammering of the mainstream media from both sides has no effect on public perception. I have thought about this a lot, and I reject it. It matters. A lot.”

I respond…
I don’t think I ever put forth that opinion and like you, I think it’s crap, to a point.

However, isn’t the more important thing in this situation whose fault said opinion is? I mean, if you want to take to task the dishonest and very well funded wingnuts who have been undermining the media for two decades, fine with me. If you want to take to task liberals like me who are sick and fucking tired of hearing complete crap coming from said news media, well, then I guess I’ll take the blame as I deserve it.

But seriously Adam, I’ll ask you again, what am I left with? What are my other options? Should I keep sending checks in? Should I keep supporting the products of those companies who own policies are abhorrent to me? Should I keep quiet about companies that build empires only to refocus said media empires on reinforcing their own power at the cost of any journalistic standards? When ABC runs their 9/11 donkey show, should I celebrate the idea that somewhere within ABC there are good journalists? And should even try to weigh the difference between said (if not semi-mythical) good journalists at ABC and the worthless politicizing that fills their airwaves most of the time?

Adam wrote, “Looking at your blog (as I do from time to time)”

I respond…
I think I just crapped myself. I had no idea anyone other than a dozen or so friends and Hedera from here read the damn thing. For years Adam the forum was an entirely private one where a few dozen of us chatted back and forth (about half a million posts worth of chatting after five years).

Hey, thanks for visiting. Maybe I’ll have to start using the spell checker since people are actually reading the silly thing.

Adam wrote, “I can see that your mind is made up “

I respond…
Completely unfair. Yes, right now, I have an opinion. In fact, it’s a strong, passionate opinion because the issues affect me directly. Issues such as the quality of NPR news are ones I feel very strongly about. But I am always, and I mean this, always open to reconsidering my stance. I am hardly a dogmatic person. Faith and belief irritates me. So don’t even suggest that because I have one opinion now, it can’t undergo change because the facts change or new information comes to light. See, if you’re a republican that’s called lack of faith flip-flopping. If you’re an average person, that’s just referred to as rational thought. I know you know that so why bother implying otherwise?

Adam wrote, “the page right now features a long, angry (and well-written)”

I respond…
I am sincerely flattered beyond words. Thank you. That someone who gets paid actual money expresses that opinion in public means a great deal.

Now if you were being sarcastic…nah, you wouldn’t do that to me? Would you?

Adam wrote, “open letter to “the media” about how the media - none of it - serves the people any more. That is your opinion.”

I respond…
Yes Adam, it is my opinion and I think I plainly state it as such several times in the piece. Granted, I do leave some room in there for what I think is the decreasingly tiny minority of the media that does still have journalistic standards and does still serve us. But in essence, you’re right.

Adam wrote, “A few entries down, you link to a story from the AP to help make a point about President Bush.

By the way, the third Google hit I get for “Deb Reichmann” is a conservative blog excoriating her for “sidestepping questions about her antiwar bias.””

I respond…
Fair enough Adam. It was a cheap shot and I’ll admit it. I know nothing about the author and frankly, not knowing anything about said author, it was wrong of me to say what I did.

Now, going back over some of her stuff, it’s not as though she hasn’t done a little steno work once in a while.

Adam wrote, “As for me “certainly not coming from any higher moral ground yourself…” What the fuck? A little character assassination and floating innuendo based on my known association with Fox and NPR? Because you disagree with what you think I’m saying? That’s unfair.”

I respond…
This one is tough for give me if I wander a bit before I make my point, forgive me.

I was in the music business for a long time. One of the things you hear, very frequently, is how artists have “sold out”. And to be sure, many have sold out. But sometimes, even the ones who did a little whoring for some cash aren’t evil. “Everybody has to pay the rent” was my typical response. Unless you’re Paris Hilton, you’ve got to work for a living (ok, maybe there are a few others who can loaf on someone else’s dime I just like picking on Paris). And even artists have bills to pay.

As much as I love Bill Hicks, I think this is one area where he might have been just a bit too much of an absolutist. To him anyone who did a commercial was a whore and lost their integrity as an artist.

Now, on to my attempt to assassinate your character.

Let’s put it this way, do you think you would defend NPR as strongly as you do if you had no contact with anyone there and had never worked there? I’m not saying (or implying or floating anything) that your position is based solely on your economic and personal relationships with either organization. I am saying, specifically in the case of NPR, I wonder if you’re defense of them would be as strong if you had no connection there?

Maybe I’m projecting a little here but I’ve defended more than a few artists who music I didn’t really like but I hated to hear them slammed because I knew they were decent people. That said, my relationship with them didn’t improve the quality of their work it just meant I spoke up once in a while when I heard someone popping off that I thought was out of line (sound familiar?).

As for Fox. Sigh. Fucking Fox. Is there a better example of an empire? An evil empire? I mean, do we have to see rupert in his personal cryogenic chamber shaped like Big Boy to really understand him? I mean, it’s rupert “I’m going to own the world someday” fucking-murdoch. Do I think you’re evil because you took an offer to do a show for them? No Adam, I think you’re actually a pretty nice guy, awfully funny and hell, you put up with me here (and you said you visited my blog!), so no. I don’t think you’re evil or bad because you take cash from ol’ rupie. That said, I wish you didn’t have to. I wish that hoping for your personal success with the Spike show didn’t mean rupert collected a few bucks as well.

Life is complicated.

Another example, that list of companies that conspired with each other to not advertise on AAR. Holy hell, how could anyone manage to boycott all of them? I mean, the USPS and the Navy were on that list right along with 87 other of the largest companies in the world. Yet I cannot think of a group of companies that deserve to be bankrupted more than those on that list.

So maybe, maybe I stated what I thought badly. But Adam, I’m not defending Fox and NPR and frankly, I don’t want you to feel as though I am pushing you to do so. But I don’t think my criticism of either is unwarranted or not based on facts. So again I ask, what am I left with? What path should I be following here?

And then…

Adam wrote, “If taking money from either of those organizations for a job -for ANY job at all, apparently - has caused me to forfeit the “moral high ground” in your eyes… I suppose I’ll have to live with that.”

I respond…
You will. And I genuinely hope it’s not a heavy burden because, as I said, we all have to pay the rent. You have a family to take care of and frankly, I think you’re a gifted writer. I think you deserve financial support for your work. As I said above, do I wish it wasn’t from people that I think are undermining our media much more than I and my pathetic little blog could? Yes, I do. Hell, maybe you do as well. Maybe not. It’s not my concern. But I don’t think it’s entirely unfair to bring up the point that yes Adam, two of the groups we’re talking about here help pay your rent.

If said in that an offensive way, I am most sincerely sorry Adam. Personally insulting was not my goal and hey, I can be a dick. Believe me, I hear it often enough. But even being a dick doesn’t prove my underlying point is wrong, only that I’m not a strong enough writer to couch my criticism is better terms.

Adam wrote, “Forgive me if I sound angry, iceweasel. But those are my opinions, love ‘em or hate ‘em.”

I respond…
I am certainly not looking for an apology from you and I don’t think you owe me or anyone here one. You have your opinions just like we all do. And I don’t hate your opinions, in some senses, we’re not that far apart. In others, we just disagree. I think, in the long run, you and I are headed in the same direction on a number of issues.

But like you, I’m just popping off with how I feel. It’s not meant to intentionally hurt anyone here. It’s just the way I feel. And trust me, I would vastly prefer not to feel this way. I’m not anarchist who desires the destruction of modern society. I just want things to be a little more fair, a little more honest. I know that’s idealistic and naive. I know it’s not even entirely practical. But as you say, that’s the way I feel.

To summarize, we disagree on how to solve the problem of eroding or missing journalistic standards and how to counter a media that is increasingly only speaking for its’ patrons. I think it’s time for something else and if in making way for something else, we have to tear down the model that exists, it’s not because many of us haven’t tried to fix the current system. You seem to fault blogs for much of this. I think that’s wrong.

Thanks again Adam for taking as much time as you did to respond to me. I very much appreciate it.

I actually had to wiki “fisking”. I’m from San Francisco, at first glance I thought you wrote “fisting” and wondered why in the hell you even brought that up.

But I’m all straightened out now.

A few things and no more fisking (what an ugly word).

You mistake what you think is self-orientation for an honest and more general inuiry. You repeatedly state that I and a large group of people are dead wrong. So, what is it you would have us do? In your final paragraph you talk around a word now making a huge comeback, “civility”. Civility, in the mouths of the whining republicans seems to be a euphamism for “please shut up”. Or perhaps more to the point, “Don’t do to us what we’ve done to you”. In that last part perhaps there is a grain of truth. But I’m not advocating that nor do I think are most liberal bloggers. What I do see is a lot of people angrily refuting, many times with facts and cogent commentary, the lies and distortions that have been promulgated throughout the media and government for the last, oh, pick any number between one and twenty years. Someone once opined that was easier to motivate people through one small appeal to the emotions than it was through a whole series of rational, logical arguments. The republicans have certainly proven this point over and over again over the last few decades. While deep in my heart I would much prefer the type of discourse you outline I also know that it hasn’t worked because whenever such an argument is mustered the response is to discuss that emotional appeal. The media, all facets of it, have most enthusiastically participated in this aiding the republicans. When Gore wanted to talk about issues, the media ranted about his him inventing the internet and the rest of Gore’s purported “lies”. At what point is then acceptable to just look at your opposition and say, “Guess what? You’re completely full of shit and you’re hurting this country by not honestly discussing the issue?” So I’ll, in a slightly different form, ask again, do you really think that by being more civil, more polite and dignified we’ll advance progressive arguments?

In my lifetime (I was born at the dawning of the sixties) I have not seen this liberal media that supposedly existed. I have seen a media that went after a sitting president who clearly and egregious violated the law. If that was a partisan attack then perhaps I need to wiki a few more terms. I think the liberal media has always been a myth. It has during my life at least. So if we use that myth as a starting you can see we’ve already framed the argument to the benefit of the republicans.

I think, as we probably both already know, that we’re just going to disagree on the percentages of who and what are at fault here. And as I said before that may not be even the most important thing but rather, what we do going forward. I know you think that without the NYT and the AP we’re “blind” as a country. I suppose. However, I would suggest that we’ve been blinded, overwhelmingly, for some time now. How much more blind we could be might be a discussion point but I think it misses the point. The institutions are, in my opinion, already broken, not sort of or a bit broken, utterly broken.

There’s the popular metaphor of the pendulum. The pendulum swings back and forth and overall, it averages out to the center. The problem we have is two fold. First off, the extremes have been grossly redefined. What used to be considered left and left and right are, these days, really center and extreme right. The left has, for the most part, been shut out of the argument. For many detailed and thoughtful examples of this check out David Neiwert’s brilliant blog Orcinus. Of course, David is a writer and freelance journalist who just happens to be a blogger as well, so maybe he doesn’t count in the group of lefty blogs that do report and offer serious, informed commentary. Without getting snarkier I’ll leave it at that. Suffice to say, even if that metaphorical pendulum swung all the way to the perceived left, who would find? Aside from a Kucinich or Feingold (the rare exceptions) we’d find the Liebermans and the Landrieus and the blue dogs. Not really what I would consider the pinko commie horde at the gates. Right wing eliminationist rhetoric (thanks Dave) is the norm. That’s the middle. That the mainstream, primetime political opinion offered. And you want to balance that again how?

Ok, I have to do one “fisking” (if that’s even the right word for it):

To make a ridiculous but- I think - interesting comparison: Just because your tax money has paid for the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Iraqi women and children doesn’t mean that I think you have forfeited some imaginary moral high ground to some, say, Swiss guy. And I would not respect you more if you had not paid your taxes. Less, in fact. Life, as you say, is complicated.

Actually, I don’t see your argument as ridiculous at all (and maybe that says more about me than I want). And I think your comparison is entirely accurate. You know what, I may have protested, made calls written letters but you know, I didn’t really do more than that to help stop this Iraq nightmare. I don’t know that there is anything I could have done to stop it but I do know that the money I’ve paid into good ol’ george has gone directly to the war effort. That mythical guy in Switzerland (over-priced, watchmaking bastard that he is) truly does have some, however slight, moral ground to stand on. I think the argument as a whole is ridiculous but the technical point is there and correct. It doesn’t make that watch-making, neutral bastards argument stronger but he does have claim to some measure, no matter how small, of objectivity that I could not lay claim to.

Finally with regard to NPR. I have to come clean here. It’s always been my hope that because you were involved there that something, maybe even a diluted version of something I wrote here would find it’s way back to someone at NPR maybe someone who could make some small difference. I know they don’t listen to me. So why not you?

Adam, I would suggest that my connection to NPR, though not as direct is as yours is every bit as strong. I might guess my connection to NPR is longer than yours and it’s not even that these comparisons make any difference. It’s not a contest. My point is that it distresses me at a deeply personal level to see an institution that I love, truly love, an institution that I have supported with my money and my time for many years sink into the swamp that other media outlets have. It’s especially hurtful and it leaves a void in my life. NPR used to be an enormous part of my life.

You tell me that my “list” is flawed because you know that someone on the list is “flaming, frothing liberal”. Maybe so, but all I know, all I can know is what I hear and what I hear disgusts me. And don’t you dare say it’s because I want someone to beat the shit out of bush or I want them to be more stridently lefty. Hell Adam, I’d love it if they could just capture half of the objectivity they used to display every day. NPR was only a liberal oasis to wingnuts. Sure, it has some very liberals programming but by and large, it was, at one time, a haven for accurate and objective reporting and intelligent discussion. Now, sadly, I see it sinking right along side the major broadcast networks in repeating, not reporting. And yes Adam, if anyone in the media repeats a lie, a known distortion, then they are complicit with that lie. If in presenting “both sides” of the story they present the center and right, then they are complicit with the rest of media skewing true objectivity into something else.

See it from my side if you can. You may think I’m being grossly unfair, I think something I’ve counted on has been and is being degraded. I wish they exhibited the strength of their convictions and told the wingnuts to fuck off (metaphorically of course) and reported the facts. Instead it’s seemingly devolved into a news organ all too similar to other networks.

One reason I stay away from here is not to get into the NPR thing. It’s too close to home for me. So maybe I need to keep to that policy. This isn’t just some detached political wank for me, talking about NPR. It’s about something that has been part of my life since I was, more or less, a kid.

Adam, I always had this feeling that you feel as though you’ve somehow failed as blogger when someone manages to draw you out for one of these extended discussions (with me or anyone else). I could very well be wrong but if I’m not I have to say, I think it’s some of the strongest stuff on your blog. Whether I agree with you or not, you put forth your arguments eloquently and you manage, even in the face of personal insult, to maintain your composure (something I’ve never learned to do). So I hope I’m wrong and I hope you keep getting sucked into these threads to add to the discussion.

That’s it. I have to try and go earn a few blood-stained dollars.

Reasoned debate and informed discussion of the issues do not win elections. In fact, no one could represent the polar opposite better than the current occupant of the White House. That is the greatest frustration with which we find ourselves faced. But reasoned debate and informed discussion of the issues can attract both younger minds and those who find themselves in some way disenfranchised by current realities. Perhaps all we can ever do is try to look to the future, and to the discussions occurring among those from ages 8 to 21 or so.

The only thing that advanced the Civil Rights movement in the South, as best I remember (I was a college student beginning in 1960), were the dogged determination of activists, especially Southern black activists and their white fellow travelers, and the infusion of activists from more enlightened sections of the country, many of whom were driven by progressive religious beliefs. Reasoned debate seems to me to have played very little part, except among young people.

MLK, Jr., brought a voice, a charisma, and an abililty to raise a Biblical sense of injustice to Americans in general. But it took the pictures of dogs and fire hoses being turned on Blacks, goon squad policemen brutalizing marchers and jerking American flags out of the hands of Black children, and scenes of murder finding their way into the the living rooms of average Americans that spelled the albeit still entirely too slow demise of apartheid in America.

Still, perhaps, it would not have been possible were it not for a bunch of Age of Enlightement Americans and a Constitution that included the most important ten amendments ever penned.

Damned, this really is complicated.

Clusterfuck is one of the great words ever added to America’s lexicon, and boy does it ever fit current realities.

AAAAGH! Why did work have to get busy NOW? I’m going to have to take a week or two off jut to catch up with this POST, let alone all the other (non-political) blogs I’m ignoring.

Adam: You are the most funny, self-deprecating, RATIONAL commentator that I have yet come across. Did I mention hilarious? I’ve followed your blog since I first heard about it on Wait Wait, and I’ve never been disappointed (except when you don’t write!). We lefties need more level-headed people like you to keep us honest.

Thanks for all you do, and please don’t let one guy with a worldview seriously dented by your opinion keep you from expressing it.

ice weasel: Take it easy bro. Adam’s not out to get the left or the blogosphere, he’s trying to make a point about how they may be unintentionally causing the problems they so want to solve. Sorry you don’t agree with his opinion, but personal attacks are really unnecessary.

Thanks, Adam. That was perfect. I wish I could frame my thoughts so well; glad that someone out there can.

Indeed, very well said. Can’t wait for more Funny!

The hell with going back to. Just keep on doing what that little motivator in your head tells you to do at any given moment. I like funny, I like serious, I like light-hearted, I like intense. I also like being in the national championship game. Sonofabitch. This thing is about to happen. Hope I am deliriously happy about 4 hours from now.

Isn’t that sweet—Microsoft produces software that runs best on a Mac! Don’t tell Bill I said that.

David: breathe in, breathe out. Try not to spike anything you might need in the morning (the Dutch crystal, your wife, the dog, etc.). And congrats!

Since da Boss installed IE7 at SMB, we have pretty sparkly new fonts, but a lot of our emails are not going through. That gets interesting when you’re trying to book 75 authors for Left Coast Crime convention.

Adam, kudos once again!

Alas, I am also too much constrained by work (after having been off for three weeks) and then by transcendant fatigue after work (the afteraffects of dealing with three weeks’ worth of work in one day) to respond to this post in the thoughtful manner it deserves. I can’t get much past “I’m rubber, you’re glue…”

Speaking of back to the Funny. I started this morning reading the previous entry because I wanted to add a Michelle Malkin note. When I clicked on the “go forward” link at the bottom of the page, I got this:

Error 403
We’re sorry, but we could not fulfill your request for /2007/01/06/why-you-shouldnt-read-this/ on this server.

You do not have permission to access this server.

Your technical support key is: 402a-3d3c-dfd9-b1ad

You can use this key to fix this problem yourself.

If you are unable to fix the problem yourself, please contact musicaddict at gmail.com and be sure to provide the technical support key shown above.

I guess Adam really was serious about not reading this.

By the way, the comment I posted in the Michelle Malkin post was a link to this oddly appropriate Word A Day page.

Jay

Ann,

You ever doubted?

Chapter 4 of Obama’s new book The Audacity of Hope (imagine italics), “Politics,” proved a most interesting read piggybacked onto this thread.

Dale,

I managed not to break anything in my, shall we say, state of exuberance.

Jay, I adore the Word a Day!

I didn’t forget, cooper; I’m merely rationing my compliments to Mr. O’Reilly.

The history of the fourth estate is somewhere between checkered and utterly abysmal, but it’s hard not to have hoped that what we saw with the inception of NPR and the sobering effect of the Viet Nam War and Watergate on the major media meant something for the long haul. And it has also been very hard to accept media consolidation as it has devolved.

hedera,

There are some exceptional NPR stations, along with an amazing community station in Tampa, WMNF. And while Adam is correct that we can still extract a great deal of needed, primarily factual information from the media if we will but look, the thrust of the fourth estate over the past decade, compared to the thrust of the fourth estate say 1965-1975 (a period not without its shortcomings), the comparison does not suggest we are headed in a positive direction, just as the thrust of the federal government under contemporary Republican domination has been anything but headed in a positive direction (except for the short-term interests of the very wealthy).<