of course traditional marriage is under attack, and has been for 100 years or more.

Traditional marriage is a usually-permanent contract between a man who has the full legal rights of a human being, and a woman who has only a subset of human-type rights. She can't vote, she can't own property, she can be beaten by the man (within traditional limits), she may not be permitted to travel alone or speak in public.

Traditional marriage has been doomed since the 19th Amendment, it's just a big, big dinosaur and the message is only just making to the brain.

This is why some people say same-sex marriage is a threat to them: because it *is*. If two people who are indisputably legal equals get married, that kind of implies that marriage is a relationship between legal equals. This truly does undermine unequal traditional marriages, not to mention men's confidence in their natural genital-given superiority.

Evan Thomas, editor-at-large of Newsweek and former Washington bureau chief, was quite self-revealing recently in an interview by the Princeton Alumni Weekly [http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW07-08/06-1212/moment.html] -- Thomas is Professor of Journalism in Residence at Princeton:

I would like to think that we are an antidote to blogs, that our opinions are more carefully considered and based on real reporting. ...

Some people complain that reporting about the upcoming presidential election is too much about polls and fundraising — the so-called horse race — and not enough about the issues. Is that a fair criticism?

It’s a tiresome criticism, because what voters really benefit from are neither horse-race stories nor issues stories, per se. What they really learn from are stories that try to get at what the candidates are really like. Now, that’s not easy and it takes time, but there is over time a collective wisdom and judgment that comes from journalism that seeks to explain what and who the candidates really are — their character, personality, ideas, honesty, and integrity.

In other words, IMHO: Newsweek wants to be People, not The Atlantic. But the fact that he is invoking the collective wisdom of journalism doesn't just boggle the mind, it leaves it bleeding out in a ditch.

We're blaming reporters because they're such willing, syncophantic tools, because they *pretend* to be doing something else. And because we might have some traction with them, where we don't have any with their corporate masters.

The Constitution protects the press in a way it protects no other industry. Saying, "well, it's a business, get over it! Of course they're only interested in money" removes the reason for the press to have special protections. Honest reporting -- or at least *varied* reporting -- is how the media industry is supposed to pay society back for the First Amendment.

I don't know if the best solution is Congressional hearings (horribile dictu), pressure on the corporate overlords, or voting with our eyeballs. Che Pasa and Associative Individualist are quite right that pressure on the plutocrats is likely to be more effective than pressing the low-level droids, but I don't really know what's the best way to do that -- besides following MediaMatters.

I am asking that straight: how do we know who are the pundits and who are the journalists?

Real journalists name names, put in working links, cite sources, include footnotes. Most of them these days seem to be named "Charlie Savage".

Jakob Nielsen, who studies usability, usefulness & user satisfaction in website design, says that websites can communicate trustworthiness: [http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990307.html]:

Not being afraid to link to other sites is a sign of confidence, and third-party sites are much more credible than anything you can say yourself. Isolated sites feel like they have something to hide.

This *should* be a first principle for online news sites, but those from the MSM are all missing the boat.

I don't know if GG follows Nielsen's work, but his columns here are textbook examples of Nielsen's guidelines for effective online writing: short paragraphs, don't bury the lede, topic sentences, many outgoing links, not afraid to use lists & judicious bolding.

He's my Congresscritter, so I should give him a call later today -- one way or another.

So, given that Rep.Holt is still fighting the good fight (cloning him should be a national priority), do I call him to encourage revolution in the Congressional rank&file? Or do I call Reid to say, wake up and smell the voters?

The HRC campaign stuck the press in the toilet as a direct expression of their esteem. Given the way the press has treated her over the years, I think she's perfectly justified -- one might even say ballsy -- to do it.

are the ones who equate "manliness" with violence, vindictiveness, stupidity, arrogance, and inches.

Aren't you male people deeply offended by this kind of talk? Why don't most men see it as insulting to for manliness to be equated with bloodthirsty idiocy? Seriously, guys, wtf?

a serious and fairly exact definition of what "strong on terrorism" is political code for.

Your comment was so long & complex that I'm not sure I understand what you're saying "strong on terrorism" *is* code for.

IMHO Glenn is saying it's "having a bigger dick than the other dickheads".

Remember, a lot of the "psychological pain" you're talking about is whipped up by Republicans. They're the ones who talk about "no attacks since 9/11" (and don't mention anthrax), who've got a meaningless Terror Alert system, who talk about needing to sacrifice every permanent liberty for a few scraps of temporary security.

You're piling up the evidence, guys.

As far as I can tell, most of Obama's "not-manly-ness" is that he does not have a broad build. That's it. So, would wearing suits with shoulderpads be enough? Or does he need to grow a beard -- or would that tip him over into Scary Black Dude territory? How can he be both a Scary Black Dude and an unmanly wimp?