... it may be that people simply don't want to share such information as you have wished for, or that some of the individuals are private people, or are here to discuss other concerns, or that it's none of your business (voting, in particular, is a protected privacy. It used to be, at any rate). To presume it's fear (or only fear) strikes me as speculative at best.

Speculative at best? Well, yes --- what does the word "if" mean these days? Or a phrase like "seems as if"?

I also was only interested in those fine souls that have spent a week attacking me for taking a position; yet they hide when asked.

As an example, the fastest way to end a conversation on a given topic is to state what you think and then ask William what he thinks. It is fair for him to ask me. It is fair for me to ask him back, no?

... The larger point, though, is that contributors here have been supporting candidates, researching policy, highlighting successes, and cheering positions for a long time - certainly as long as I've been visiting Unclaimed Territory, since before Glenn moved to Salon. ...

I have seen that as well; but I asked about *now* given that the debate season had started. I would think that reasonable people might possibly have their opinion effected by current events.

Would you?

"...This figure is in dispute, as the article you cited says in multiple places. I can find places in the charts where this guy R.J. Rummel seems to be in dispute with himself. ...

Yes, it is in dispute. It stood at 200,000,000 for many years until revised upwards. All figures are in dispute.

However, I have never read an academic say he was of an order of magnitude or anything like that. Even though people on the left and the right hate the very idea, I have not seen any real refutation.

I am no academic, nor expert in the field of government killing its own --- but unless one is blind, one sees that government does not automatically convey safety. The Jewish folks I work with love to remind me all the time that one must always be on guard and alert to the knock on the door in the night.

Glenn Greenwald: "One of the points I attempted to emphasize this morning as part of the presentation I made was that as much as we think we know about the range of controversial Bush policies, it is almost certainly the case that what we do not know, what remains concealed, vastly outweighs what we know."

This may be the best observation in the whole mess. The fish rots from the head down, and we may find over time that the atrocities committed in the early 21st century are more horrific than even the best of us can imagine; and far more numerous.

However, what is to be done? You have spent many posts counting the ways that the mainstream media is not up to the task of ferreting out the horror stories. I have watched CNN today and I can see only fluff news as always; perhaps a column or two will make the papers in a few days.

The "Justice Department" is full of "Bushies" and Attorney General seems to think his job is to protect his President no matter what. It looks like only congress has the power to investigate properly; but does it have the will?

Would the investigation phase of an impeachment process be the ticket? Or, does congressional "oversight" hearing have the muscle to get to the bottom of these issues? But if this is just the tip of the problems, will we ever uncover it all?

We need a "watchdog" press. Where may we find one?

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001549.html

Go, and read the links. It leads to a great little cat fight between blogger Mollie Wilson and New Yorker writer John Colapinto. Mollie Wilson's blog is recommended if one likes smart women who enjoy the arts (non-political mainly); and tinyrevolution is always good.

I post it here however, because of the comment at tinyrevolution:

Here's why I think things spiraled out of control:

1. I suspect evolution simply did not prepare humans for the internet. We're designed for face to face interaction with others—where communication involves not disembodied words, but words plus tone, body language, facial expression, etc. (Hence emoticons.) Words by themselves are a surprisingly small part of the message. Along with this, the no-place of the internet encourages users to (unconsciously) engage with others as not-people. I'm sure if Colapinto had met Mollie sitting next to her on a plane he would have acted much more normally.

2. The internet rightfully causes great anxiety to old media writers. Not only does it erode the economic base of their institutions, it also calls into question their status. Until now, reaching an audience with your writing was about talent only to a limited degree. It had just as much to do with going to the right college, living in New York, being charming at cocktail parties, etc. This is particularly true about the type of cultural writing Colapinto does. Who doesn't have an opinion about Paul McCartney? Who can say why Colapinto should have a job doing this, as opposed to anyone else?

Perhaps number 1 is why people are so verbally violent on-line with other people even when they have much in common with. It is a "poser."

Number two is more of a problem in our society. The way one becomes a "media writer" might explain why the White House press core does such a bad job in our eyes, but not their own. You must be part of the "power crowd" to maintain your status and keep your position. So, the idea of a "watchdog" press takes a back seat, if it can even get in the car.