This had to be a PR move with the intention of beginning the process of altering folks' perceptions of the Republican party in advance of the election in '08.

Why do I say this? Simple. Ask yourself why this meeting was leaked to the press by the Republicans. I can't see any reason to do this other than to manipulate public perceptions of the party in time to try and convince voters that Bush is the problem but not Republicans in general. The fact that Tim Russert got the scoop just adds to that interpretation since we already know from the Scooter Libby trial that he is perceived by the Republicans as a reliable conduit for their propaganda.

Very fine post Glenn. I too have been amazed at the response of the traditional media to blogging. Blogging is one of the first and best democratizing fruits of the internet, allowing a broad conversation among citizens (and the world) to discuss the issues of the day. It is one of the most exciting democratic developments of my lifetime. On a personal level, it has also been an essential way of recognizing and working with others out there that are equally informed and unhappy with the status quo, in the face of nearly universal MSM support for a war that I always recognized as being based on shaky evidence at best and outright lies at worst. Add to that the invaluable roles bloggers have paid in pushing stories like illegal wiretapping and the USA firings and you have the sort of citizen watchdogs needed to ensure the government remains of, by and for the people.

Are there bad, irresponsible bloggers? Sure, but they exist in an environment where their poorly considered and ill supported positions are subjected to ruthless public scrutiny and discussion. Isn't this precisely what the founders of our nation sought in codifying freedom of speech? They never expected all speech to be insightful and well informed, but they did expect that if the discourse were unencumbered that citizens would be able to use their individual intelligence to sift through the prevailing set of ideas and make informed decisions.

I've been using bicycles for communting, recreation, and touring for over three decades, so I feel that I have some perspective on the issue. I think that the criticism of cycling manufacture in this post is largely misplaced and misses the most important point of what Burke is saying.

Let me first deal with the issue that cycle manufacture is a global industry, and then I'll turn to the need for advocacy.

Global manufacture of bikes isn't really any different than the global manufacture of nearly everything we consume these days, whether we are talking about cars, children's toys, clothing, electronics or sex toys. Globalization and its benefits and ills is a much bigger issue than bikes per se, and its problems (low wages, environmental effects, offshoring of jobs, etc.) need to be addressed generally, not simply for bikes. That said, the benefits of cycling as opposed to driving, no matter where the bike is manufactured are undeniable. Decreased pollution, lower global warming emissions, better health, decreased traffic congestion, etc. Yes there is some additional pollution for ocean shipping, but compared with the emissions to ship a car and then the emissions over the life of a car...well, I'll take the bike any day, even if it is being manufactured overseas.

With respect to adoption of cycling by more Americans, Burke is dead on. I love the experience of cycling, so I'm willing to put up with traffic, arriving at work sweaty and accidents generated by drivers that treat cyclists with indifference at best and hostility at worst. But the average cyclist isn't going to do put up with those problems, so advocacy is essential to changing the conditions under which folks can cycle to make the experience safer and more pleasant. My minimal list of advocacy issues include

1. Safe bike lanes/routes that make it possible for a person to commute throughout a city without risking life and limb in traffic. A bike is never going to come out on the winning end of a collision with a car or truck.

2. Adequate facilities to secure a bike at all places of work and business (just as there are parking facilities for cars).

3. Showering facilities at work. (I would gladly postpone my morning shower until I got to work if facilities were available.)

4. Incentives to encourage cycling and safe cycling. This is an area I haven't given enough thought to but would at a minimum suggest communities teach folks how to ride safely, do basic bike maintenance, and use gears correctly. It would also be good to have training rides to help folks get in shape who haven't ridden a bike since they were kids.

5. Relax dress codes in some professions since cycling in a suit is rarely desireable (or with the addition of showering facilities at work places, also have closets/lockers where work clothes could be kept).

6. Provide public transportation that will accommodate bikes so they can be used before and after the public transportation system is used for distances that are too great for a daily ride.

Go ahead, add some issues of your own!

Because it's not any of the other colors of the rainbow.

The recountings of these "big" Texans with Bush, remind me of Kurosawa's great film Rashomon. How else to explain the significantly different accounts of what exactly Bush said and did?

In any case, all three accounts are deeply unsettling. Bush has always been shielded from the reality of the world and his effects upon it by his "bubble" of advisors and sycophants. Now it appears that the small amount of criticism that does get through reveals him to be unmoored as well as out of touch.