I'm telling you--it won't be long at all before the press corps is frothing about Howard's hair. The Washington people you cite are not reacting so much to Dean's honesty, or his unaccustomed frankness. Instead, they're reacting to the fact that Dean wants to drag them where they don't want to go: Into issues.

Writing about issues, and candidates' views on issues, requires knowledge, thought, some historical depth, and at least a slim grasp on the realities confronting the nation. The media assiduously avoids the issues because to write about or discuss the issues would reveal instantly and unavoidably that the press is utterly ignorant, incapable of any but the most shallow thoughts, has no knowledge of history, and it hopelessly out of touch with reality. Dean thus threatens them because to actually report on him would be to expose themselves.

So look for stories about his hair, his shoes, his wife's hair, his kids' shoes, whether he was looked up to by other kids in his grammar school, and so on. Those things are the level on which the press actually functions. Those stories will fill the pages and the hours of video tape--at least until Karl Rove reveals Dean's drug dealing, his black love child, the dungeon beneath his house in which satanic rituals are performed, and so on.

As usual, Derelict is absolutely correct. As mentioned in my comment to the post below, the usual suspects are on the game again. Seelye was the operative there. VandeHei is also one of the incompetent slugs assigned to the trashing of Dean:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=Jim+VandeHei&sa;=Google+Search&cof;=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains;=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch;=dailyhowler.com

These people are gossip columnists masquerading as reporters. They are trying to rise to the level of political hack.

Well, I just got home from my trip to total boredome today, but on the way back I was listening to the Bloomberg news, and all of a sudden...."we interrupt this broadcast to bring you this important announcement", and then Bush makes the announcement about Libya abandoning WMD, and my immediate thought is, well, since there weren't any weapons in Iraq to get rid of, he's got a great diversion there.

Bush IS on a roll, they're making all the right moves, there's a lot of time between now and the election and anything could happen, but what are the Democrats doing??

I don't hear any moving and shaking going on, it just appears to be a "hunker down and hope it gets better" mentality, geez, maybe one of the candidates could catch a train and go out and shake hands and get to know a few people.

Anyway, Bush is on another roll, just made another hit with a lot of potentially undecided voters.

in Diamond Age Neal Stephenson claims the only vice we believe in is hypocrisy because we assume no-one actually has any values and therefore they must be lying if they claim it. Sadly, there's a ring of truth. We've just acquired a new opposition leader (the hair truly is terrible) who is be ing comprehensively bagged by the government.

The best example is one minister screeching about Iron Mark Latham's abandoned (divorced, actually) first wife without mentioning his own love child. The media then eagerly interviewed the first wife who said the sort of thing that ex-spouses tend to say, especially with a mike shoved in their face.

Latham's popularity has continued rising throughout this unedifying spectacle. Latham is also getting back the blue collar vote in a way no Labor leader has managed in a generation.

I'd be unsurprised if President Dean finds himself meeting Prime Minister Latham sometime in 2005.

Alan, at least your media trashes with a modicum of class and no pretenses. What we get here is people who pretend at gravitas, but rarely rise above the lowest possible levels.

Derelick, I just paid you a compliment a couple of blogs down and then come up and read this. You've got an amazing grasp of the issues, but don't you get it? The issue is VOTES and that is the ONLY thing that matters.

And I thank you for the kind words.

The issue is indeed votes. But votes are hard to get when the only information the electorate receives is a pastiche of innuendo and shallow "people" reporting about hair, shoes, and pop-psych nonsense with a running undertone of false stories and bogus accusations.

Consider the 2000 elections. By any rational measure, Gore thoroughly trounced Bush in the debates. But that wasn't the message that the media focussed on after the debates. Instead, we got a bunch of pap about how Bush did great because he didn't drool on himself, and did you see the jacket Al Gore was wearing? (Seriously--go back and look at some of the newspaper and television coverage after the debates. You'll find entire screeds, whole half-hour TV shows devoted to why Gore chose to wear brown instead of blue, who cut his hair, is he trying to portray himself as a "alpha male," and a bunch of other nonsense.)

So, yeah, the bottom line is votes. But the media is the sausage machine through which Dean must pass. Bush gets a free ride; Dean will get the full treatment.

You're reminding me too much of why I quit watching television and I'm getting nausea. You're right, its been all downhill since the OJ trial, and probably before that, but I guess I just wasn't paying attention.
Geez, I'm feeling like Mario in "Cranks and Shadows", but I'm too young to feel that way.

Anyway, I'm dumb about a lot of this because I don't watch television, I get maybe 15 or 30 minutes a week of it, and thats only by accident while visiting friends.

Where is the "liberal press" I always heard ran things?

Rush Limbaugh appears now to be a historical figure, at least there are encouraging signs that the pendulum may swing.

I hang out at beer joints, funeral homes and other undesirable places, and only hear it second hand, but I'm not hearing any of that stuff you mention from middle aged people like me.

What happened, did all the newspapers and television networks go corporate all the way, and retire everyone over age 35?

Derelick, you know, maybe the Democrats ought to sign up Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger to run, they're proof that what you're saying is the absolute truth, but I just don't get it. What happened?

With the kind indulgence of the good people at Bad Attitudes, allow me to rant a bit.

Buck and many other people wonder how journalism in this country has fallen to such low estate. Much of the blame, if you will, goes back to the first reporter who shoved a microphone in the face of a grieving widow and asked the magic question "How do you feel?" With that one incident, an entire new world of "journalism" was born. Its implications for society at large have been profound.

In the world of media and journalism, it opened the door to lazy and mediocre reporters. No longer did reporters have to toil at tracking down and developing sources, assembling knowledge needed to ask relevant questions, digging up facts, and putting it all together in a context that readers and viewers could understand, use, and perhaps act on. Now, all that was necessary was to pander to base emotions. Asking "How do you feel?" became the base-line question of journalism at all levels.

As this became the norm in media reporting, it began to influence other important areas of society. With feelings having been elevated to stand on a taller pedestal than knowledge, emotions became a commodity. Asking the grieving widow "How do you feel?" transformed private grief into a public commodity. Soon, an entire industry sprang up that specialized in trading on this commodity. Today, professional "grief counselors" travel the country in search of disasters large and small, working ceaslessly to turn private grief into a business. In the wake of a grade-school child being killed by a car, the grief counselors descend on the school to essentially tell the kids that they're not grieving enough.

Taken together, the media's fixation on emotion and the rise of the emotional commodity industry served to reduce the level of discourse in society as a whole. Actual thought became as passe as hoop skirts. A citizen did not need information, he or she only needed to know how they felt.

Everything in the public discourse began a steady devolvement to cater to this. And why not? Catering to the limbic system is oh so easy. You can be made to feel warm and fuzzy with pictures of cute little puppies, made to feel sorrow with pictures of the shattered family, made to feel joy with pictures of newborn babes, made to feel triumph with pictures of athletes holding aloft trophies.

The masses responded with overwhelming approval to such base manipulation. It relieved them of the burden of thought. You can see this whole phenomenon on display in its most egregious form by watching American coverage of the Olympics. Half or more of the televised coverage is devoted to sappy "background stories" about the athletes that dwell primarily on variations of the cute puppy, shattered family, newborn babe types of emotion-evoking storylines. (I think it was NBC that reach a fresh nadir with this stuff when they essentially skipped coverage of most Olympic events and spent almost 75% of air time with such nonsense.)

With this as a backdrop, the further elevation of celebrity was a natural consequence. Since the media had discovered the profit potential of appealing solely to emotion, celebrity and its promotion became a natural adjunct. Jesse Ventura ran for governor, and all the public needed to know was that he was famous. Issues, so boring and so laborious both to report and to think about, had no place in this discourse. Fame appealed directly to the emotions of the public, and emotions are the most valuable public commodity.

Thus do we come to current times. Arnold can run for governor and completely dismiss any and all questions about issues or substance. The media doesn't push because issues do not trade well, but the emotions of it all do.

So we will see with coverage of Dean's campaign that his views on issues, his policy proposals, solutions, and other matters of substance will receive scant review. But the hot-buttons that are directly directly to the public's limbic system will be pressed constantly. Since Bush operates solely on this level, and so comes across very well, his coverage will be most sycophantic. Since Dean's message requires thought and knowledge, his coverage will concentrate on his hair, shoes, and so on.

So sad!

Derelict

The media apparently believes that the only way to get "viewers" (feelers?) is to appeal to their limbic system. Aren't they correct?

Would have the media appeal to viewers' intellect, to their thrist for rational thought and analysis. Should we go back to the deeply intellectual discussions we used to get with a Bill Buckley or the old Washington Week in Review. Calm, rational, highly lucid, reasonable, repartee?

Maybe this is what people need? Is this what they want? I don't think so.

An example of thinking with the limbic system, if that's possible. Saddam is captured. Wham! The next polls shows a 10% increase in those who think (sic?) that he had a direct link with Al Queda. Where was the rational thought here? What was it that elicited this response. Was it the beard?

We probably have a chicken and the egg situation here, but how do we break the cycle?

Well, all we seem to be left with for the time being in America is a bunch of limbic systems reacting. I guess Dean needs to tap into that with visceral, emotional, limbically appealing ads. We are post rational discourse. Maybe on this site, but not in limbic world.

As an American expat living in Warsaw, Poland for the last two years, I am amazed, shocked, and saddened by the total dereliction of duty by the mainstream press to keep the public informed of real issues. I am particularly outraged by the journalists who know the identity of the leakers in the Valerie Plame case, but who won't reveal their identies as a result of their determination to protect their sources.

Since needless to say Ashcroft's Justice Department will continue to enable the coverup, the journalists should for once put America first, and reveal the traitors who took these criminal actions in outing an actively operating CIA agent.

The only thing that gives me any hope is that with the whore American press, if one reporter rolls over on the White House, the others will come out like cockroaches to try to outdo each other in the usual "me too" fashion to see who can divulge the most about the outing and the coverup. They just need one responsible patriotic person to get the ball rolling and take most of the initial heat from Rove+Co.

Yeah, for the time being we're stuck in the limbic world (not to be confused with limbo, or Limbaugh). My hope is that some time soon the public begins to realize that the constant gnawing, empty feeling they have is the result of the flacid their reasoning ability has become. They might then seek to fill the empty feeling with knowledge.

For the immediate future, I can see Dean perhaps breaking through by crafting a message that combines the limbic tap-in with critical information. For example: "Our children cannot be educated with a slogan; we must fullly fund No Child Left Behind." Simple, coherent, easy to remember, and slices right to the maternal/paternal limbic pathway while conveying the information that NCLB has been shortchanged.

I happened upon this interview in CounterPunch with some waaaay waaay lefties named Adam Engel and Ed Herman. http://www.counterpunch.org/engel12132003.html

I was struck that they seem to feel (and this sentiment is echoed here) that somehow the media is "hiding" the left's message to the people. That Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, NYT, Cnn, the WaPo and EVERY SINGLE university etc, ect ect are simply not able to move the message - or rather these institutions are insuffuciently left-wing.

If the message is way too left for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo etc, then perhaps there is simply no market for these views. That is, the views are sooooo left-wing and soooo extreme that not more than, say, 5% of Americans find them reasonable.

I would submit that, historically, when "cells" of hard-lefties get together, they bring on murderous Socialist systems that lead to the murder of millions. No doubt, that's a tough sell.

The problem isn't that the message isn't getting out, the problem is the message. No one wants to hear it.

The problem isn't that the message isn't getting out, the problem is the message. No one wants to hear it.

Thus demonstrating that you have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter what the message is. The media has gotten to the point where there is no message--it's all about manipulating feelings and playing to emotions.

It's not that the media won't transmit the message because there's no audience. The media is not even slightly interested in transmitting messages (at least beyond "Drink Coke!"). They're only interested in making you, the viewer, feel something.

As your post most admirably demonstrates. It is utterly devoid of factual or substantive argument and appeals to the emotional by tossing out the most extreme and unlikely possible catchphrase ("murderous Socialist systems"), proclaiming that as the mainstream, and denying the reader the opportunity to think.

What look like "hard-lefties" to an American conservative look like middle-of -the-roaders to most of the industrialized world. Our right wing has found it useful to claim that Marxism equals Socialism equals Joseph Stalin. It is more accurate to say that Marx's true ideological legacy is to be found in the socialist (to varying degrees) nations of Europe and elsewhere. These cells of hard-lefties have produced such murderous atrocities as universal health care, powerful labor unions, affordable college education, universal preschool day care for the children of working mothers, tax codes far more progressive than ours, safe and adequate pensions, excellent retirement homes for the elderly ... Oh, why go on? Either one knows enough about the rest of the world to understand that people in many other countries live just as happily and well as us and sometimes more so — or one does not, and refuses to find out.

These "hard-left" societies who, for the most part, resisted bribery and threats by the peaceloving Bush admin to join in the raid on Iraq enjoy a quality of life far above that of the average citizen of this land of the formerly free and craven.

Bush and his sponsors have ripped huge holes in the Constitution (I submit burning the Constitution is by many degrees of magnitude worse than burning the flag that these people have trampled upon again and again,) traded a significant amount of the to-date ovine electorate into near slavery (compared with those "socialist" states of industrial Europe,) and who swagger with distressing arrogance upon a world stage where they are despised by one and all, friend and foe alike.

Wait a second... we shall soon hear how their unemployment is higher than ours but who says that -- and it is what you hear next from the corrupt right -- is comparing apples and raisins for not only are the bases of calculation different (e.g. while your sister who hasn't been able to get a job for the past two years is no longer unemployed here, she may be in one of those countries) but the safety net in those countries has fewer tears and is held at all four corners.

One does get so tired of hearing the right bleat and bleat and whine from a background of ignorance and wishful thinking. They offer a joyless world devoid of honor, justice, and compassion. They want to remake the world outside in the twisted, tortured image of their sad, dark souls.

My Christmas wish is that they be visited by the ghosts of Fascism Past (Germany,Italy), Present (Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft corporate juntocracy), and Future (one in which the US lies in ruins and nobody gives a shit).

I am not arguing that the societies in the rest of the industrial world are perfect. There is no perfect society now, nor most likely will there ever be. But one in which truth is not an enemy, compassion is not weakness, and justice is not a method of political control has a chance to survive and provide its constituents with the opportunity to have a meaningful life. The anonymous commenter above is a dangerous fool.

Jerry: Those guys are middle of the road? Hoo Boy!!

Let me ask you something, if we plotted political views on a left/right axis with the anarchic, ANSWER left at zero% all the way on the left, and the anarchic, survivalist hard right at 100% on the right. I would say that most Americans sit between 30% and 70%(mostly disinterest). And that the NYT is about 25-30%, Fox News is about 65-70%. Ted Kennedy is about 15-20%. Rush is about 80-85%. Bush is about 55-65%. CNN might be 30%. WaPo might be 40%. I would place myself at 75-80%. Engel and Herman are about 2-5%.

Do you agree with this analysis? How would you redo it with the same institiutions and people I listed.

Al Jordan, I'm afraid I don't hold Americans in quite the same contempt you obviously do. Looks to me like there is plenty of information out there and if people don't read it your way, well, it's the message.

By the way, guys, Howard Dean is a really terrible orator. Really. He just can't give a speech and he sounds disjointed and disinterested. We probably disagree, but take a critical look at his speeches sometime.

Jack, I wasn't saying that American "hard-lefties" aren't hard-lefties in the American political spectrum. Obviously, by definition, they are. I said that they would be considered middle-of-the-road in most industrialized societies. As indeed they would.

As to Dean's oratorical skills, look at my December 15th posting called "Dean Speaks," in which I pointed out at considerable length that his foreign policy speech was flat and uninspiring. And that Bush was a better reader of speeches.

But that Dean, in the Q & A period, was masterful in the type of situation that invariably reduces Bush to babbling incoherence.

I turned on CNN radio tonight to try to get a take on the American political scene, but then some program comes on about sex and marital infidelity. What do you have to do to get away from this kind of crap? I thought radio was going to get me away from this stuff.

Derelict, you are right on the money, lowest common denominator, I like the ladies as much as the next guy, but I don't want it served on a platter when I'm trying get serious about life.
The political reporting was shallow in the extreme.
CNN 30% pooey, they are just a sex channel.

I'm now tuned into Xm radio channel 15, folk radio, a WWI song about Christmas, "Chistmas in the Trenches" and the soldiers who celebrated Christmas among antagonists "without the ones who called the shots".

Thats my style. I can finally relax.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Here's a poem for Christmas, I just couldn't resist.

Christmas in the Trenches
(John McCutcheon)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, ``Now listen up, me boys!'' each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
``He's singing bloody well, you know!'' my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
``God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen'' struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was ``Stille Nacht.'' ``Tis `Silent Night','' says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
``There's someone coming toward us!'' the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
``Whose family have I fixed within my sights?''
'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore

My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same

******************************

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night,
Buck

Ah, Jack, I knew it was you posting as anonymous, sweetheart. I must say your Limbaughesque analysis really did turn me on again.

I thought Al Jordan (who I must thank for smoking you out) was describing you too close to your actual nature for you to understand it but I did and I think many others did as well.

I hear them maligning you as an ignorant ass who doesn't understand that the NYT is closer to 60 or more on your scale (I think they believe you have forgotten Monica and WhiteWater, Berke and Gerth and company).. that war hungry post-Turner CNN is also at least 60 on your scale...Fox is 90 and you are 120, my love, and I am furious with them.

They think that the little condescensions to reality that CNN and the Times must make from time in fostering the illusion of objectivity does not make them left wing, either here or in the grand scale of things. We laugh at them.

Ah, these guys just don't understand your obscure charm and the hidden sense of dignity with which you approach others.

I resent Al J's projection of his vision of your soul (twisted, sad, mad) over mine (hot, sexy, hungry for my sweet, hard lovin'.) I am sure before long we can be married and raise a family thanks to the God given Supreme Court.

I agree with you, of course, in that Al Jordan went way over the top suggesting that the American public at large had your values and wisdom.

Dean is like a modern-day "Man of Steel", the harder they hit him, the harder the bullets bounce. I wish I could vote him in as President in right now (Bear in mind I am FAR from a Liberal or Democrat).

Talk about "honesty" and "dodging issues", Dean has 16 Questions for President Bush... I'd be amazed if he answered one.

10.2 Months is a long time, and the public is very fickle with a short memory. It's still anybody's race.

The 16 Questions for President Bush:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id;=6998&news;_iv_ctrl=1301

Jack

I agree with you on this one point. Dean, for some reason, is not a good orator. I hope that message gets to him. However, he does perform well without a script. Bush, on the other hand, can not string more than one thought (sic?) together without pausing, saying "uh" and making one wonder if he can remember the question or what he is talking about. Rove rightly keeps him away from any major intellectual challenges as much as possible. Dean's speaking skills can be improved. I would doubt that anything can improve Bush's ability to think on his feet. He simply does not have the intellectual capacity to do so. Or he has some other fatal flaw which can not be improved by mere coaching.

These are just facts. However, I doubt that any of these facts will have much to do with who is the next President. As far as I know, the majority of the American people may find Bush's linguistic incompetence endearing. Or "enduring", as Bush might say.

Jerry, I was sorta hoping to see how you would score the political landscape on the 0% to 100% scale. And especially, I would like to see where you place Engel and Herman on that scale. I believe these guys have only 2-5% of Americans to the left of them. Rush is the the right of 80% of Americans. Also, where are you?

Tom, Same questions.

Also, I confess that Bush-the-orator has the capacity to make me cringe. But he is a known quantity (to say the least), has fantastic writers and very rarely has free form discussions. He has already clobbered Gore in 2000 where he was supposed to get chewed up by the most brialiant orator since Daniel Webster. He won because he seemed real and Gore revealed himself as a wierdo. Dean, is not a known entity to most Americans, I doubt many have seen him give a speech. It will be quite a shock to them, I suspect.

Dear Jack,
I agree you might position Marx' Communist Manifesto at about 20% on your scale. What I don't understand is why a lot of business school teaching is based on his CAPITAL. I mean, did he just draw the wrong conclusions?
Me, being a 0% anarchist who thinks stupid thoughts like 'everybody according to his capacities and everybody according to his needs', I really couldn't tell. I know that equation doesn't work (not now, not for a long time to come). But as any good policeman might tell you, the first question to ask is always: who profits? And that's what Marx did. Anyone is free draw his own conclusions.
And somehow, especially on christmas, thinking about Jesus Christ, I don't feel he would have scored in the high numbers on your scale.
Merry christmas,
Peter

I've been thinking about what Derelict said was the root cause of all the problems with getting good news today.
I think there is a certain flaw in his logic. He argues that the main problem is lazy reporting, and although I agree that may a problem, I don't think this is caused by "How do you feel" lazy reporters, this problem is caused by management, that wants to see maximum returns on from their empires. Thus we have devolved into a system that reports based on polls that watch viewership, etc. "Lazy reporters" may be a result of what are "good hires", the folks who know how to plug into the touchy/feely world that brings out the viewers.
I could pontificate for quite a while on this subject, but I prefer to just throw an idea out there and just see if it percolates. Besides, my nuts itch and I can't reach them with my back paws, and so one of them sitting on this keyboard has got to do the job.

At any rate, in this case, the "trickle down" theory really does apply. As liberals, we should not abandon every notion that the ideas of those on the other side are completely without merit for all situations. In this case, the top is where the problem lies.

Peter: Huh? "I agree you might position Marx' Communist Manifesto at about 20% on your scale." Are you saying that there are 20% of Americans that believe in Communism or something further to the Left? Really?

Obviously Communism comes about only as the result of anarchy, because no free people would vote for it.

Buck may be right, but I'll have to go with my own experiences. Twenty years ago I started out as an investigative reporter digging into scummy deals in aviation that were getting people killed. Since then, I've worked at a number of publications as reporter, writer, and editor. Lately, I've also been doing political consulting and acting as spokesman for a small political group.

I've hired reporters. I've been on the receiving end of "grillings" by print, radio,TV, and internet reporters. And I can tell you that the vast majority are both lazy and stupid. They don't know what questions to ask. When given mile-wide openings to explore some very interesting ground, they veer away. When you try to drag them into discussions about the actual substance of an issue, they go blank and try desperately to steer the interview back to "How do you feel . . ." stuff.

When I'm acting as spokesman, these qualities are a great asset because I know I can easily get them media to adopt any view I want them to. And they will dutifully spout, without question or comment, any line I choose to feed them.

When I'm acting as consumer of news, these qualities are depressing because I know that what I'm reading, seeing, hearing is passing through a filter of idiots.

Again, watch how Dean gets covered. You will see scant attention to what he says or the context in which he says it. However, you will also see much attention paid to his clothes, his hobbies, how he eats (remember Kerry getting blasted because he didn't want to drip Philly Chees-steak on his suit?), and all the inconsequential crap they can find.

Sheeesh, Derelict. Are you STILL whinging about the media? Get over it. EVERYONE knows Dean hates Bush, hates the war on terror, is a damn angry small-state governor, can be a little prickly etc etc etc. In many ways, these very clear impressions are the direct result of active postioning by Dean himself. He has purposely set about defining himself for the voters. Kerry did the same thing, they all do.

BUT, having carefully created an image, the candidate is obliged to behave in character, because discrepancies cause some doubt, don't they. Like say, when he rails at corporate America and Bush's ties to Enron, while he has passed laws in Vermont favorable to Enron. Hmmmnn.

Dean wants it both ways: Let me define myself any way I want at any time, but you don't get to remind me of previous positions.

One more thing, this idea of where on the scale does XYZ news group or reporter stand is not something we should even attempt to argue. All of us have our own biases and preconceived notions, so we could argue ceaslessly and endlessly on this subject and get nowhere.

To really get a grip on this issue, we'd need to define the top 20 or 30 or however many liberals issues there are, and then assign each a "rating", 1-10, or 1-100, and then add the numbers up and get a raw "liberal" rating, then persons could argue why one number or the other might be wrong, but just throwing out a number and trying to defend would be an exercise in futility.

I'm not a reporter and don't really know any, so I'm probably out of my territory, but anyway, thats my take on how this would have to be done,and we can have a lot more fun and avoid endless arguments that would have no meaning if we don't get into this line of "analysis".

I'm very surprised (not!) that none of you are unwilling to even attempt to use a scale to measure left and right, however crude. And it would be a little crude. The reason is that you guys are unwilling to really examine just how way out of the mainstrean you are. Engel and Herman represent AT MOST a few million Americans...out of 290,000,000. My guess is the real number is in the tens of thousands.

And you guys whine about the direction of the country? But your views are such a teensy weensy minority that OF COURSE things aren't going your way. There are few, if any, electable candidates who represent your views. In that CounterPunch interview, Herman even said that he had quit supporting and endorsing candidates because no one with his views ever gets elected.

I think the exercise might be of interest, but to do it properly would take statistical analysis, otherwise we will all just be tilting at windmills, everyone has their own preconceived biases and notions, and doesn't it makes more sense to exchange ideas?

I've enjoyed this blog quite a bit because it has gotten me thinking, and occasionally challenging myself on my own admitted bias and preconceived ideas. I think if we start arguing numbers that we can't back up with any thing other than "how we feel", aren't we at the same place Derelict caused me to wake up and realize is one of the great problems in America today?

I was hoping that someone might give me a good argument about why "thoughts and fellings" matter, about why only technical analysis really is "1984", the Russian Revolution, and Stalinism all over again. At any rate I'm at my parents and don't have the time right now (but I'm going to throw something together), but Jerome, those of us in the Congregation would like to hear your voice.

On another level, Jerome threw out an excellent dissertation-my English teacher would have been proud-that was an "A" paper. I threw out a poem that my English teacher would have graded F. Which one lives on? I don't know, but the folk singers are still singing the one I quoted.

Anyway, food for thought, I hope everyone is enjoying Christmas and just sleeping.

One reason why Jack's thing is drawing no response is because, as usual, Jack had predicated his view on the most extreme example available, then cast it as "typical" liberal thought.

There can be no discussion when one party uses this tactic. Any well-reasoned and supported argument presented on one side is wasted when confronted with such specious nonsense presented by the other.

Derelick, I agree with you completely that "thoughts and feelings" have completely taken over our media, and thus there is no real reporting of important facts. In one sense, it is as dangerous as in the worst years of Stalin, for the "facts" never get heard.

Balanced reporting is gone. I guess thats why I gave up on everything but print media, and even most of that is tortuous.

On the other hand, pity us if we enter a realm where facts and statistics are absolute, and the world devoid of those who bring us to cry, to laugh with tears of joy, rise up to the high levels of joy, or delve into the realms of deepest despair.

I think we have a pendulum that is gotten to far in one direction, lets hope it doesn't have too much farther to go before its swings back.

Perhaps there are some of us who can work toward that goal.

"Derelick, I agree with you completely that "thoughts and feelings" have completely taken over our media, and thus there is no real reporting of important facts. In one sense, it is as dangerous as in the worst years of Stalin, for the "facts" never get heard."

Do you really believe this??? Really?? Have actually SEEN the gulags where FoxNews dissenters go?? Or is watching another Kobe update just as bad going to a gulag?

And Derelict, you are wrong. I put out a sample of what a scale might look like and put my views out. No trick question. But again, it's pretty clear that you are unwilling to plot just how far left you and those you admire reside. And then you wouild have to acknowledge just how few people share your "beliefs".

Jack

I think there are problems associated with establishing an all encompassing number scale to measure right/left parts of the political spectrum. I would prefer a more nuanced and detailed survey which shows beliefs on a whole range of specific/general issues. From that, one might be able to construct a deposit, but still, a lot of important data would be lost in such a composite. While a reject a simplistic quantification of this issue, I will freely acknowledge that I am not in the mainstream and am on the left of most people on most issues.

Another problem is that many on the right are, in essence characterizing fiscal conservatives as left. This seems to be a new notion and falls into the category of political oppurtunism not an honest assessment of what is really happening. I consider irresponsible Government spending as unacceptable, but I do not consider it conservative to tolerate or favor such an approach. So much of what the Bush administration does is simply corrupt, irresponsible, and damaging to future generations. It does not uphold the best traditions of conservatism; it would not be supported by my dead father, who was an ardent Republican and conservative.

Right now it's all about power. The conservatives have forgotten their roots. Their intense hate of Government has been translated into bad Government with corporate cronyism, record deficits, and the hijacking of the truth. Beware rule by big Government. But also beware rule by big corporations. Neither situation is conducive to a free people or is healthy for democratic (smnall d) institutions.

So what am I? Don't answer that. Well, consider this. Even Grover Norquist is campaigning against the patriotic act. But of course that is complicated a bit by the allegation from conservatives that he is in league with Islamo terrorists.

But I digress.

In any event, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. But this is self identification and may overlook a lot of nuanced positions. In addition, the vast majority of Americans support environmental positions that would normally be characterized as "green". Unfortunately, this often does not translate into these same people voting for green candidates (and I don't mean the green party).

On the last post, I meant composite, not deposit. I wish one could edit these things. Need to start proofreading.

Tom:

One quibble: folks like Tom Delay, who fight for right-wing values, not American values, say they hate government, but that is not true. They are pro-government, and indeed pro-big government. It's just that they see Big Government's only role as aiding corporations, whereas folks like Dean, who are fighting hard right now for a return to American values, not right-wing values, see government as an instrument for aiding individuals as well as corporations, a sharp difference from Tom DeLay's emphasis on corporations only.

That's what Big Howard means when he says the people have the power to "take back America."

--LB

Anonymous commenter, I did qualify my statement. What I said was "In one sense, it is as dangerous as in the worst years of Stalin, for the "facts" never get heard."

I didn't mention Gulags, we are a long way from that point, but Derelict does have a good point, who's wearing what and how they fix their hair and endless babbling on and on about such trivia diverts attention from what is going on in America, it speaks to the crass consumerism that has taken over America, and in some ways that is as dangerous as eliminating dialogue completely.

At any rate, I hope we can keep the personal attacks off of here and stick to discussing ideas and issues. I have seen other groups like this dissolve when we stoop to the level of personal attacks. (I have been guilty myself from time to time, but realize thats its a dangerous game) We should save that for the campaign.

On another level, Jerome, you have an amazing ability with using images along with words to make a point. Keep up the good work. Rev. Nock's impish, devilish grin inspires me in a way I find quite compelling ; and the images in your other posts move and inspire in a way rarely seen on the net, and the image usually drives home a superb point. You have a rare talent in that regard and I hope you keep it up.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and get personal, I've mentioned my Republican family, but tucked away in the family bibile, my mother had a biography of my her grandfather, my great grandfather.
I suppose my "liberal" leanings had to come from somewhere, and I'll quote from the biography:

"...he finally emigrated to America and met here with all the various disappointments immigrants are sure to encounter at first".
......

" Mr. [private] is a socialist first, last and all the time. No sacrifice for the caus is deemed too great by him. He has seen the blessings of socialism in foreign countries and his his heart goes out to the oppressed laboreres in the South, who are unprotected by law, and who are debarred from the right of living by overproduction."

"Although Mr. ---is a man of means, he will never entertain any capitalistic ideas and his endeavors will be to better up the conditions for the mechanics, the producers of wealth, who, he thinks, should share in the wealth they produce for this Nation.".

From 1914, but I'm proud to be a descendant of a Socialist.

Merry Christmas everyone.

No, Jack, I'll stand by my point: Your exercise is predicated on extremes, and therefore can be illustrative of nothing. Its intent and effect is to create heat, not to shine light. I'll not waste my time on such things.

Anyway, pardon my digression about family, its a flaw unique to the South, although certain Southern politicians have exploited it superbly.
To my family though, I'm the "Billy".

Awww, C'monnnn! Derelict, please please please puh-leeeeze! Won't you just take some common people and institutions and rank them left to right? I admit it is not scientific, but I think it would be instructive for all of us. NYT, CBS, WSJ, Rush, Daschle, Scalia, Bill & Hillery, Dean, Bush, Buchanan, CNN, Fox, M Moore, David Broder, WaPo, you, me. C'mon, it'll be fun!

Rather than do that and waste time, why don't we critique the "16 questions for President Bush". I read them and in my opinion, they need a lot of refinement. I just your average dumb joe, but just about every one of them they doesn't "connect" with me. Or maybe thats something the Dean folks need to do.

I'm with you on proofreading Tom-I've done it over and over again.

Jack, your exercise would be anything but instructive--least of all for you. "Ranking" as you intend it truly is an exercise for fools. Despite your black-white, left-right view of the world, few things or people are easily or comprehensively categorized. That, say, WAPO brought down Nixon and derided Reagan's policies mercilessly makes it a left institution; but what of its constant scandal-mongering during Clinton's two terms? Does that make a right institution?

Only fools attempt to see the world in such terms. Again, the exercise is intended to generate heat, not to shed light.

LB

We agree. The Government is bigger than ever, bloated beyond belief to support corporations and contracting out. In theory, we used to contract out if we could do it more efficiently. No more. My Government friends tell me it's being done "just because". We also seem to be contracting out "Governmental functions". This used to be a no no. But there's no counterbalance in the congress. Will there be anything left by the time W leaves? America is being sold down the drain.

Buck:

Interesting snippet on your great-grandfather. Did he survive the Palmer Raids, or was he jailed? And, have your read Dos Passos's "U.S.A." trilogy? A great telling of the times and issues your great-grandfather lived.

--LB

The Florida land deal scam got him in the 20's. I could tell you more, but its a family secret, so I won't go there here. Jerome's got my permission to give you my email address.
I haven't read that books you mention, but I think I probably need to read them.

LB Thanks for the comment on the Palmer Raids, interesting reading and a great history lesson. Google Palmer Raids and you'll see a lot of parallels in history. Thanks for the journey back in time, I hope history repeats itself, at least the final chapter in that one.

Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.