I don't think you were giving Palin a pass so much as you were just not diving head-first into all the bullshit and distraction surrounding her.

That's why I read your blog. More insight, less bullshit.

Anyway, if Palin shouldn't get a pass then neither should Obama. That is, his apparent aversion to connecting with people by challenging the way things are might have a lot to do with Palin's success.

Good luck with the MSM. I thought it was interesting that Moyers, like NPR etc., apparently didn't see the value of presenting an alternative perspective from someone like Ralph Nader during the presidential campaign.

Like NPR, I suspect he not only knows what most Americans think but knows what's best for them too.

"by and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are."

"monomaniacal on the subject of civil liberties."

That gave me the first belly-laugh of the day. Thank you.

Top excuses for not challenging the order of things:

it's time for belt-tightening instead; these times are too uncertain; It is more difficult than a lot of people realize; let's just play it safe and be pragmatic this time--unlike last time.

"Americans elected Democrats to implement Democratic ideas and will hold Democrats responsible for the success or failure of their policies."

I still don't know what the O'Dems stand for--if anything. It's kind of like they're there in D.C. temporarily just to watch over the store until the boss gets back.

Meanwhile, everything keeps getting worse.

"The point is that their function is to amplify and glorify establishment power -- the exact opposite of what Thomas Jefferson thought they would be doing when he advocated for a free press as the supreme safeguard against abuses of power."

I look at what's happening in journalism today as a microcosm of what ails us in society in general.

With regard to journalism, you could say journalists indeed have a sacred obligation to the public good. But isn't there a like-wise sacred obligation for people in general?

I think for the most part everyone--journalists, elected officials and the everyday citizen all have become devoted to narrow self-interest.

It's like--we're all businessmen now.

But what all of the issues and crises we face today have in common is that they are public problems and therefore a matter of public morality--i.e. the principles and ideals of democracy--not economics.

So the questions are, what is the correct relationship between self-interest and the greater good and what role should public morality play?

I agree public outrage is key to any kind of meaningful reform.

But maybe surprisingly, it turns out such outrage isn't that easy to come by. And to make matters worse, when it comes to what's needed to generate it--there seems to be two missing ingredients these days.

The most likely obstacle to collective outrage today is the self-interested mindset. I call it the market-mindset because it's essentially people's internalization of what drives the market(and is all to easily manipulated). And today that self-interest pretty much drives every mind and permeates every aspect of our society.

So, it's to the point where people won't understand or at least feel compelled by an argument--whatever its merits--unless it is somehow directly related to their self-interest.

If an injustice occurs that directly effects a people's interests--only then will they become personally "outraged." And then it's the kind of outrage limited to the boundaries of---you guessed it--their self-interests--and not other related issues.

So, we're on an increasingly downward and inward spiral of self-interest.

And what the O'Dems are doing regarding the bail-out-heist on Wall Street also gets translated through this culture of self-interest. That is, the ongoing corruption actually reinforces the prevailing 'everyman for himself' ethos deepening self-interest in a fatalistic way. So more corruption on Wall Street won't necessarily bring more outrage--in fact--it might serve the opposite.

With the spiral downward you could say sooner or later everybody is directly and unambiguously effected. Of course by then it's a catastrophe and outrage is too late.

So short of catastrophe--outrage needs to be generated by people through their sense of public interest--no easy trick in normal times but made worse today since a sense of the common good is the first missing ingredient. And the incentive and critical component to that common good is the second missing ingredient: dedication to freedom.