I guess my biases are always toward those who, regardless of their inherited religion, have lapsed enough that they can see the world with their own eyes. I don't think it makes anyone less "Jewish" if their support for Likudnik Israelis falters, any more than I thought my mother less "Catholic," when she told the chaplain at the hospital when she was dying that she only put "Catholic" in her profile "to keep the other religious crazies away," and waved him away dismissively.

Ultimately, the test of any religious belief is whether its central tenets mean anything to you.

For Jews, this could only mean identifying with, and certainly not persecuting, disempowered minorities. For Catholics, same thing, particularly in America, where our beliefs were long considered cultlike and aberrant, and also to recognize that salvation could only come through good works, and a humble life in the image of Christ..

Both religions have now been coopted and shamelessly exploited by political movements that operate in their names, evidence of which we see here, and, shamefully, representing the opposite of their founding principles.

If there is a God, he/she would be embarrassed.

Thank you for your kind offer, Northwestwoods; I plan to take you up on it.

But for future reference, never use the word, "Ma'am."

My mother taught me that. Even if the woman in question is old enough to be your grandmother, "Miss" will always go over better. Try it. You'll see.

Please make a note of it.

As they do with every disastrous policy they espouse, The Republicans are again using fear of some imagined outcome to justify what they were planning to do anyway, and make straw-man arguments against those who might question them. They discard these rationales as easily and rapidly as they dream them up, of course, so if it begins to look like one isn't working, another is quickly trotted out.

"Protecting Israel" is about the fifteenth fake reason for their ME policy, and since it really doesn't hold water, it too may soon become "inoperative." The trick is never to acknowledge that previously exploded myths were just that; and given the short memory and negligent complicity of the media, millions of Americans will still believe all of them.

Best of all, having a ready smear for doubters keeps the Emperor's nakedness a secret. Thus, those who doubted the existence of WMD "supported" Saddam, those who questioned the war policy "hated America," and those who oppose attacking Iran "hate the Jews."

What's depressing is how well this works.

The news media, then defined as the printed press, was considered by the Founders to be an utterly essential component of democracy, and its corruption and manipulation by the government a manifest evil. No other "industry" is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, nor granted the rights and responsibilities of the press. Free speech, therefore, was even then understood to be largely a function of distribution, from pamphlets to newspapers, since by the 18th century shouting on a streetcorner was necessarily limited in its ability to inform the public.

Of course, the press eventually became great generators of wealth and notoriety for the owners, and press barons from Hearst to the Chandlers to finally, Murdoch, shamelessly advanced their business interests through their papers, knowing, and using, their power to influence public opinion to suit their ends.

Many laws governing the media, from the Telecommunications Act, to the Fairness Doctrine to the Newspaper Preservation Act, were good faith efforts to respect the expressed conviction of the founders that only a broad diversity of voices and interests could preserve the ability of ordinary citizens not to be propagandized by a powerful few, and make decisions on their own. Like the separation of powers, it was thought that, as Big Tuna and ramoncreager mentioned, that many voices, even if some were unscrupulous, would eventually lead to the truth, if only in the pursuit of self-interest, and attention.

Concentration of all media, in too few and too powerful hands, as quickstategy notes, is the problem, leaving corporatism aside.

While I agree to a point with Mona that the Fairness Doctrine is a crude tool; since our political system is unwilling or unable to enforce antitrust laws, the FD is the best thing we have to right the ship of democracy when concentrated ownership and a fetish to be free from the burdens of the first amendment while basking in its flattering glow sends every media outlet to one side, threatening to capsize us all.

I would add to Frankly, My Dear's point that right-wing radio, joined at the hip to the extreme end of one political party, would simply be impossible under the Fairness Doctrine, and that would be a good thing. Here in Portland, a very liberal town, the many right-wing stations are all called "News Radio," while the only liberal station is called "Progressive Talk."

All are owned by Clear Channel. Coincidence?

The run-up to the war is a perfect example of the feedback loops created by concentrated ownership, the "entertainment" value of war, the MIC links to broadcasting companies, and a political party in power eager to either punish or reward a very few entities for toeing the line or not.

Clearly, since the media use the public airwaves and have responsibilities that come with their treasured 1st Amendment, the government can and must have a role in how they operate. The alternative is what we have now.

Quickstrategy, (eyelashes batting demurely, one coming unglued) Thanks. Yor posts are very good, too. You're a welcome addition, as many others have noted.