Why should the Fourth Estate be any different from the First, Second, or Third? We humans are atavistic at every stop on the cosmic socio-economic pathway. The more remarkable thing is a propensity for the denial and retribution of the criticized to flourish in the full light of their critics' unassailable arguments for repudiation.

Of course what most think of as the mainstream media - in every medium and in every market - failed to meet the profession's high aspirations for corroboration, verification, credulity, and skepticism in reporting the events and concerns of the nation in the run-up to war in Iraq.

And of course the champions and spokes-people of the mainstream media will deny it, even in the reflective clarity gained from our present understanding of subsequent events.

Worthy of consideration are the ways and means by which critics wrest power from and wield power over the criticized. In the war of ideas (the war of words), the truth will set you free.

As attack ads go, this is pretty tame, folks. What's so negative about pointing out one's policy differences with one's opponents?

The Republican Party is supposedly the party of conservatism (though there's certainly not much conservative about the last three presidents it sent to Washington, DC), and I find it completely appropriate for Mr. Hunter to try and establish his conservative credibility in contrast with the words and actions of those against whom he's being compared.

There's a disconcerting theme cropping up in Salon's coverage of the 2008 Presidential race. Yesterday there was a story purportedly about an "attack ad" put out by a GOP candidate with no hope of winning the nomination. And now this piece on Mr. Gravel.

Memo to the Editor: statements of fact should never be characterized as "attacks" in any pejorative sense. Mr. Gravel was speaking plainly, from the heart -- as did Dennis Kucinich last night -- and the sooner our media stop pinning the "hopeless" appellation on candidates who speak the truth and who speak from the heart, the sooner we may step closer to saving the democracy we've all seen slide down the sh*tter during the past six years.

Compact flourescents? Folks, our post-global-warming valhalla will be lit with LED lighting, which is pleasing to all genders and increasingly just as easy to screw in as any ol' bulb.

This shouldn't be difficult. The 1st amendment prohibits congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech."

Therefore, there should be no law delimiting "what you should be able to say on the radio." Period.

Should self-absorbed blow-hards like Imus, Limbaugh, Stern, and any of the countless other harpies and bleaters out there in radioland be able to make a living spewing their bile on the airwaves? That is a question for the license-holders and the "free market" to answer.

Last I checked, even the most newfangled radios are equipped with an off switch and a method for changing the station.

Nick Lowe channels Al Green, Willie Mitchell, and the Hi Rhythm sound... Hope For Us All, indeed.

Well, now, let's see...

Has Oprah made a career out of saying unapologetically crass, provocative things about people and issues with which she has no familiarity whatsoever?

Is Oprah known for disparaging entire segments of our multi-faceted social milieu in order to prop up her own inflated sense of self-regard?

Is it impossible to view her entire oeuvre without coming to the conclusion that she is a narrow-minded, jingoistic hack who is primarily engaged in the ruffling of feathers for the pure, sadistic thrill of it -- because she CAN?

Oprah is not perfect, by any means. She makes a bad call now and then, and her capacity for narcissism is difficult to comprehend, but she is to Don Imus as chateaubriand is to Alpo.

Sour grapes, maybe, from Sir Bob, but I have this question: why is he constantly referred to as Vice President Al Gore?

He is not the vice president; he is a former vice president. He is a private citizen doing a commendable job of being the public face of global warming awareness.

Dick Cheney, unfortunately, is Vice President.

The key lines from Mark Thoma's piece are these:

"I don't have the answer. As I said, when costs were concentrated on small groups of individuals it was easier to help. Now, with the costs so widespread and the benefits so concentrated at the top of the income distribution, there will be more resistance."

In a vibrant democracy, such an observation would be absurd on its face. It is only a testament to how broken our democracy is that many will read those lines and think, "how true, how true..."

Brian, as a dog expert knows, but for the more generally deficient in knowledge of dog, basenji is known as "the barkless dog."

Only a myopic televangelist zealot like Jerry Falwell could have had the bright idea to tap one of the most famously corrupt and immoral figures of the past quarter century to lecture young people on the principles of morality.

Aside from the total dearth of personal credibility that renders almost every word out of his mouth an empty platitude, Mr. Gingrich makes the same historical error made by anyone who attempts to paint the current picture of the eternal struggle between "good" and "evil" with the brush of World War II: al Qaeda is not Nazi Germany; Osama bin Laden is not Adolph Hitler.

Perhaps most egregious, though, is Mr. Gingrich's willingness to quote Abraham Lincoln twice, who opined, "nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows," when both Jerry Falwell and Mr. Gingrich himself would not think twice before doing just that to anyone who doesn't "believe" in the way those two charlatans would deign to dictate.