There is, sadly, nothing new here. What is happening in Alaska now has, as you duly note, been happening in Washington for at least 7 years. And the scoundrels who most reflexively take refuge in patriotism are the ones most eager to sanction the wholesale dismantling of the principles that formed the basis of what they claim to honor.

Perhaps it is all of a piece. We nationalize banks and insurance companies (well, their losses, anyway). The government increasingly accumulates the indicia of ownership of major corporations (next: GM and Ford). The gap between our founding documents and our de facto governance grows to Soviet proportions, as do high-level corruption and the domestic surveillance apparat. There is a post-Cold War irony brewing here of tragic and massive proportion. All brought to you by those who claim to be guided by a desire to conserve all they destroy.

The rhetoric is completely different from the Soviet propaganda. But the chasm between word and deed is eerily familiar.

And our last best hope is to place faith in a man who promises only to dismantle less.

September's selection will be, "But government spying is different from private hacking!"

Assuming Obama wins in November, we know an early 2009 selection will be a fairly precise inversion of that construction.

I'm not so sure licensing is a good idea, because the other thing Bar Associations and Medical Boards do is artificially restrict supply, and the only reason blogs have been as effective as they have is that we have in a small way busted the cartel created by the concentration in the mainstream media.

I think the contrast you draw between doctors and lawyers on the one hand and journalists on the other is worth exploring, because it explains so much.

Just as the Founding Fathers recognized the weaknesses of man, and designed institutions intended to limit the evil we can do, the medical and legal professions decided long ago to create (or had created for them) institutions to police the excesses of those who pursued self-interest at the expense of patients/clients. And so a lawyer who violates the rules is disbarred; a doctor who does so has her license yanked.

When the New York Journalism Association yanks Judy Miller's journalism license, I'll call what she did a profession.

Speaking of which, as despicable as Our Lady of the Chalabi Hobby is, I think referencing her here doesn't really help your otherwise excellent argument; defenders of the 4th estate will argue that her dismissal from the Times is actually an example of the system eventually policing itself. I think that gives them too much credit, but you have chronicled so many better examples over the years that I would have left her out here.

A splendid bit of evidence of exactly what Glenn is talking about is on display at Media Matters today:

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809060003?show=1

As you point out, the mainstream press is either unable or unwilling to put any bite behind their shrill, Pomeranian bark. (The national Enquirer, on the other hand...)

But the beauty of the game form McCain's standpoint is the other significant bit of context here -- that the far right has already so utterly brainwashed their followers into the unshakable belief that the press is a nest of liberal snakes.

That puts an elegant explanation in play for the total lack of vetting of this Pandora's Box of a VP pick.

Maybe they didn't vet her because they were lazy or stupid or desperate. But think about the situation from the perspective of the mouth-breathing base -- the folks who actually believe that the press has an overwhelming liberal bias. By picking someone completely off the radar, McCain has set up a very useful game:

1) Press finds abundance of dirt on Palin;

2) Republican noise machine cranks up the "liberal media" charges;

3) Obedient sheeple repeat liberal media shibboleth and tune out even the most egregious revelations about their new sweetheart.

Pretty creative, actually. And it means they have an effective play whether or not the "media watchdogs" continue to snooze.

Completely agree -- Chicago was different -- and will continue to be, because the police state has gotten much more sophisticated in its management of dissent and dissenters.

For several years now, government sanctioned protesters have been herded into government sanctioned protest areas, where they can be officially ignored by government sanctioned pundits. (Unless, of course, they are PUMAs.) What Glenn is chronicling is the next logical step in the process -- preemptive arrest of enough protesters for Conspiracy to Commit Free Speech to chill even the idea of dissent.

Glenn, you are indeed a beacon. I can't help wondering if you are also at risk as a flashlight on a foggy night.

I was too young to understand what happened in Chicago in 1968. But I don't think anyone over the age of 18 back then was unaware of it, because the press covered the protests in great detail. That coverage was likely far from unbiased, but what has struck me in this episode is that, for all of our (justified) bitching about the appallingly bad reporting that forms the basis for so much blogospheric ire, it is even worse when they willfully ignore stuff like this.

And that is the real difference between then and now. To the ink-stained wretches, abusing DFHs is no longer even news. The Villagers simply cannot be bothered with such trivia as hypocrisy and fascism -- not when there are Clintons to ridicule and mavericks to flatter.