Your account of the Chuck Todd debacle rocked my world. Your style and skills stand out in a world that's been screaming for a little light. Today’s assessment of the response of the "Cronk's" death may well be the most profound account of any single current event that I've seen in my life. Between nailing Tim Russert and that whole parallel universe, and pulling the chair out from under that blow-hard David Gregory, my chin hit my chest. I quit school after doing the 10th grade twice, and later got my GED and spent a year at CCSF, but I haven't had any voice in at least 8 years but I think a lot. In the past few years of haunting the blogs of my choice and more importantly, screening the comments, I have been able to expand my stash of working information to a degree I would have never dreamed of. I'm just smart enough to know that their are some truly masterful writers out there that can write circles around a fellow with a limited vocabulary, a fellow like me. You probably can imagine my limits by the lonnnnnng way I'm getting around the barn.

As I read your posts many of my un-expressed questions are put to rest, and you work is so dead on accurate and solid that I'm sleeping like a baby these last few days. I know that's a lot to load on someone's back, and I apologize, but I'm passing along a comment I submitted to The Huffington Post, 3 times without their printing it and I finally forwarded it to her nibs herself. This is neither here nor there, my objective here is to thank you for being on the job and I feel like you may have to slow down Mister Dillon, or your gonna have Dodge all cleaned up, and how well would that fly?

Here's my comment with regard to Katherine Thomson's post: Maureen Orth, Vanity Fair re Michael Jackson 6-26-09

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/maureen-orth-recounts-mic_n_221334.html

She started writing the book before it was confirmed that he was dead. I remember well when her husband Tim Russert died, and how he was showered with the most flowery commentary since Reagan, and nobody pointed out that he had been one of the biggest toadey's in the MSM, it was painful to watch him at the helm of Meet The Press for the entire Bush years, week after week, month after month, year after year, dodging every hot-button issue that ever came down the pike. For instance, The Downing Street Papers, soft peddling the Plame affair, all the B.S. and lies that got us into Iraq. Nobody said a word, so what does his widow do when another with mixed reviews dies. She's the first, and so far the only one in the media to launch such a dark and mean spirited attack.

I hope they’re real proud of her over at Vanity Fair. And I might add that I'm getting sick and tired of having to post comments twice before they get posted. If this doesn't make it this time i'm going to forward it to Ariana Huffington and ask her what rule of style or form I'm remiss in.. I haven't said anything that I haven't seen in one way or another in the other comments to this post.

ed chatham

2140 redwood hiway k-11

greenbrae, ca 94904

415 240-5924

Bravo, Glenn Greenwald. The decline of the US owes not a little to idiotic policies mindlessly (if one is kind) promoted by the successors to Cronkite.

The corporate media stars have become experts at telling the story in ways most favorable to them. You can see it not only in their whimsical Cronkite ownership, but in the ongoing Jackson story as well. They have all but ignored a glaring part of that story, of which they themselves contributed to the singer's difficulties by obsessing over 100% negative inuendo and rumor for a good twenty years. And no, it was in fact only his own behavior and the day his hair went up in flames which was the cause of all his troubles. I'm no big fan of MJ, but I do see what they did to him endlessly, and I see in both stories an unwillingness by the giants of media to honestly report anything which reflects badly upon themselves. Watching the likes of Katie Couric espouse her typically shallow and carefully pitched unfelt words and praising Cronkite was an embarrassment; as though she is some sort of current peer qualified to be toasting the man. Please. By the way, when was the last time we heard of any major corporate media figure becoming involved in a scandal, I mean, aside from the organized drive to eject Dan Rather? I suppose they simply never do anything unconscionable. Far be it from me to suggest they ever censor things which may reflect badly upon one of their own.

Cronkite wasn't completely removed from a patriotic influence, but he was far more the keeper of the truth than any of these leashed clowns today. That's the way it used to be.

Who should pay? There should be no rescues unless you sign up first and pay an "insurance" amount. Otherwise, you are on your own --- my ancestors survived in the mountains without the state coming after them. (well, the state did come after them but for other, more liquid, reasons)

So much for a "lie".

Don't know whether you know this, but the only liquid they make in the woods where the kid got lost is maple syrup.

The issue is also one of changing the rules after the action is taken. That has a nice Latin name and is held to be important by constitutional lawyers like the host of this site. Perhaps you can e-mail him and ask about this.

They didn't. New Hampshire changed the rules from "recklessness" to "negligence" as a standard before the kid got lost, and they have charged for unnecessary rescue costs for decades.

As for the user fees model, aren't you now arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Or do you think taxpayer dollars should pay for this rescue?

The "average" rescue is a lot cheaper because it doesn't take three days and is conducted in the summertime.

And one final correction: I don't drive ambulances most of the time.