This probably isn't the proper venue to bring this up to you, but what other chance will I have?

It's true that the LA Times op-ed page is the most vibrant part left in a newspaper that has been reduced significantly in value in recent months. Putting op-ed in Part I was a big mistake, though, in my opinion, if only because it means two people can't read the paper at once (Part II has been relegated to man-bites-dog stories; anything of real local interest is now in the front section).

But I must say, if Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg are the best conservative points of view you can come up with --it's either a comment on the state of conservative-side journalism these days or a failure on the part of the Times to lure someone better. I admit I don't have suggestions because I don't read much conservative opinion, but there have got to be a few genuine conservatives -- in the classic sense of the word -- out there who can write and aren't just desperately trying to carry water in a leaky bucket for Bush and his senseless war, not to mention suggesting that we go on invading whomever else we please (Iran, anyone?).

With respect for the work that you do,

Jim Houghton

This plan is characterized as calling for "precipitous" withdrawal and the choice of words is allowed, all too often, to stand. What the hell is precipitous about a year and a half of what promises to be more nothing except killing and maiming? Between this, and "If we stop fighting them there, they'll follow us here," and "This is taking away support for the troops" etc., the rhetoric of the pro-war faction is just so damn dishonest, it's hard to perceive their true motives.

What happened to the dog???

But I turned that video off after only a minute and I'm still feeling a little dizzy.

Calling it the Mainstream Media is a bit of a quaint anachronism, isn't it?

The word "mainstream" is defined in one dictionary as "The ideas, actions, and values that are most widely accepted by a group or society." Once upon a time you could call the averaged-out national media -- to the extent that they could be aggregated at all -- mainstream, when they were largely locally-owned and their editorial content/bias was determined by journalists or people who worked closely with journalists. (Sure, the Chandler family "ran" Los Angeles by wielding the power of the Times, but they lived in Los Angeles, too; they breathed its air and drank its water, and what influence they had was almost entirely local (never mind the role they played in launching Ronald Reagan's political career).)

What should now more accurately be called the CNM, the Corporate National Media, is guided by a far smaller number of extremely wealthy people who tend to be tuned more into the sensibilities (and wallets) of their fellow plutocrats than to "the values that are most widely accepted by...society." The media today are only mainstream insofar as the nation as a whole reads and sees pretty much the same stuff, whether in Atlanta or Seattle or Albuquerque. Where? In the Corporate National Media.

So, yes -- thank God for the internet. This is where the mainstream is still gasping for life.

My suggestion of a rename for the national media wasn't about being more punctiliously accurate (or about typing more, which I don't particularly mind). I am bothered by the legitimacy conferred on the CNM my the term "mainstream." Like "clear" skies, or "clean" water, a word that lulls people (not you and me, of course) into thinking everything's all right, that the news is coming to them from a reliable source that shares their values.

The horse is getting pretty badly mauled here, but you say, " I agree that what those initials stand for is no longer literally accurate. But everybody knows what you mean when you use them. And that's where you misread me. I think too many people are lulled by it -- not you and me because we're too clever, but the same people who look at the words "No child left behind," and say, "Aw, isn't that sweet? Mr. Bush is looking out for our kids. Yay!"

Good stuff, El Cid. Funny.

We're all Al Gore. We're all hypocrites, at least those of us who do believe Global Warming is a real threat (see? I even capitalized it). We turn off a few lights, maybe, forswear rabbit starts when the light turns green, maybe even buy a Prius and an energy-efficient appliance or two, but it's all bullshit. We might as well have big mansions like Al. We can't help it. The way we live is woven into us, into the fabric of everything. Everything.

I don't know about the vote-fraud cases in Seattle or N.M. The fact that the States Attorneys didn't prosecute doesn't mean they didn't feel there was fraud. It only means they didn't feel they had the evidence to obtain a conviction. Do we know either case -- or some other that a fired AG failed to pursue to the displeasure of Mr. Rove -- was totally "bogus"? Neither Iglesias or McKay really answered that question on MTP, though they easily could have.

I thought the most interesting question raised yesterday on the talk shows was, "If these AGs were fired for not playing ball, how many of the other 85 States Attorneys were asked to -- and did play ball?" Leahy said that was something he wanted to get to the bottom of.