“Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals.”

- Edmund Wilson

Some days on this blog are going to be more about politics or what's going on in my life, and other days will be more faith related. The last couple of days have gone more that direction, but I didn't want to finish today without pointing out an article in the Opinion section of today's Star Tribune about faith and politics.

I don't know if the editors were feeling repentant after printing the borderline bizarre (especially since it was presented so seriously) column by Bill Moyers a couple of weeks ago, but today's Q&A - conducted by editorial writer Dave Hage - with James Ault, Jr. was a refreshing change. Whereas Moyers claimed that Christians in politics have set out to destroy the environment and stir up war in the hopes of hastening the Rapture, Ault actually took the time (3 years) to study a fundamentalist congregation and get to know what shaped their philosophy and led them into political activism.

The article merely scratches the surface of the topic, but shows a sensitive and open-minded perspective. Ault has used his experiences to produce a documentary, "Born Again," and a book entitled "Spirit and Flesh."

Sunday service was just coming to a close when a migraine headache jabbed a greasy thumb into my eyes. Over the years I've come to know this partial blindness, and its accompanying light show when I close my eyes, as the precursor to the main event and the warning that I've got about 20 minutes to get to my prescription medication.

That's not hard to do since I usually keep my pills in my briefcase and keep my briefcase in close proximity in much the same way as the president keeps the nuclear "football" nearby. In a way, my pills are kind of a nuclear option themselves since, while they're very effective in returning my eyesight and blocking pain, I know the tradeoff is going to be about six hours of feeling comfy but completely wiped out and listless.

This time I stopped as I fished the bottle out. We had sung that day of God's faithfulness, His desire and ability to heal. The teaching had included 2 Corinthians 4:7 about our treasure being in earthen vessels (ourselves) so that the excellency of God's power can be seen to be of him and not us. I believed those words, or did I? I turned to see our pastor still collecting himself on the podium. I told him what was happening and without hesitation he took hold of me and began to pray. I don't remember much of the words he used as I focused on the sensation I felt in my stomach and the light show on my eyelids. As he prayed, the lights - as usual a pretty blue and yellow Aztec pattern - began to diminish, then flare, then diminish to a short thin line. When I opened my eyes after "Amen" the blind spots had moved to the periphery of my vision. By the time I got out to the parking lot they were completely gone. No headache, no nausea, no pills.

This was great, I was elated, but now I had a new problem. Driving home it occurred to me that I should post what had happened on my blog. I don't use the word "Ack!" a lot, but I'm pretty sure that was the first thing that came into my head after the blogging thought. After all, I thought, I'm trying to establish my voice and credibility in a fledgling blog scarcely two weeks old. While a good blog shouldn't be afraid to rattle people's doctrines or challenge their perspective (in fact, that might be the whole point) did I really want to go so far "out there" so soon? I mean, if I wrote about a healing I'd experienced today, some might think I'd write about handling snakes tomorrow. At the same time, this was something very meaningful to me, and if you can't blog on what's meaningful in your life then the rest of your posts become meaningless.

I tussled with the idea a bit and set it aside. It gradually began to seep into me, however, that my reaction was more about me and my fear of what others would think of me. As a blogger, that kind of thinking is crippling; as a Christian it is deadly. Before I started this blog I went back and forth for a long time over whether or not to begin. My concern was that I would be giving in to a desire to glorify myself (even if I got just half a dozen readers a day). Early on I even wrote out a question to myself asking how I would judge whether this blog was a success or not. I thought I had nobly come up with the answer that this would be a success if I could show not how clever I am (ok, not just how clever I am), but how God and Jesus Christ could be part of a normal life and influence the way I looked at myself and interacted with my family, my church and the world around me. And here was my first test. Don't you just hate pop quizzes?

Well, the lepers Jesus healed didn't just say "thank you" and walk off in a dignified manner worried about what people were going to say about them. So here it is. I don't know what I'm going to write about tomorrow, but I can assure you that it won't be about handling snakes.

(About "Filings")

Every parent either knows - or feels - by heart the words to the "Sunrise, Sunset" song in "Fiddler on the Roof":

Is this the little girl I carried,
is this the little boy at play?

When I hear this the memory that flashes in my mind is not that of carrying either of my two daughters up to bed, or of piggyback rides. Instead I think of a family photo a few years ago. In it my girls - then about 10 and 5 - and I have been wrestling. I am standing and in each hand I've got an ankle of one of the girls and I'm holding them both upside down and off the ground, not unlike a proud poulterer holding up a couple of prizewinners at the State Fair. Imagining the picture now I can still hear the shrieks and giggles.

At this point in their lives - and for this moment now permanently frozen on film - I am Dad the Undefeated and, in their eyes, larger than life. Meanwhile, in the moments that I write this, the next line from that song is passing through my mind: "I don't remember getting older, when did they?" If asked to reenact the scene today my response would have to be, "One at a time."

As I flip through my mental photo album the girls seem to grow suddenly in a series of jerks and jumps. Of course I know they are really changing everyday, judging by the continuous trips to the shoe store and cries of, "But I just bought you those pants!" I also can't help noticing in this album that as they are getting bigger, I seem to be getting - perhaps ever-so-slightly - smaller.

Once when my oldest was very little and concerned that we might be imminently attacked by bears in our own front yard, she was greatly comforted when I assured her that if any bears came near her I'd grab them and twist their noses. Today the same promise still stands regarding boys, not bears, but it's clear that my powers are coming more into perspective. While there are times when it may seem, in my daughters' eyes, that I can still rise up and blot out the sun, I cannot stop it from moving across the sky. I am shade, however, standing between them and the heat of the world. I will continue to do so as long as I can stand.

Of course, brute force has always been of limited application. To be a proper protector my defenses have had to be - and must remain - more subtle. Jesus once told his disciples that it was better for them that he go away. His meaning was that his power both in their lives and in the world would ultimately be much greater by his living in them rather than with them. I don't construe this to mean my girls are better off without me, but rather that I must devote my time with them to preparing them to live on fruitfully, just as Jesus did in his three years with the disciples. The time together already seems all too short.

When they were little, their well-being depended on instant obedience to my authority and that of their mother. It was not expected or accepted of them to ponder whether or not we meant what we said or whether our instructions supported their personhood or hurt their self-esteem. "No," "stop" and "don't" could keep them from a boiling pot, a busy street or a strange dog. As they get older they are still at risk from natural forces, careless strangers and unpredictable human animals interested only in their own gratification. "No," "stop" and "don't" might still have an effect, but it's better to teach them the underlying reasons and standards for moral conduct so they can also work out the "Yeses," "do's" and "go-for-its." In that way my influence can carry on a lot further than my authority will ever be able to.

For my influence to be effective, however, I have to keep learning and examining myself both for my own benefit as well as theirs. Like it or not, my life will be a standard that my daughters will use to judge men on in the future and I want to set the bar pretty high with no apologies to the young fellas coming along. Perfect or not, it is mine to carry. On one level my girls may see me as "Dad of Dads, Keeper of the Remote and King of Rude Noises," but they should also know at a deeper level that I have laid and will lay down my life for them. As they grow older I hope that they will not settle for any man who will not do the same, even though the kind interested only in the "lay down" part may be all too common.

If you have daughters I think you know what I mean, and I hope you, too, are preparing yourself and them to live by your influence and that of Jesus while submitting to the authority of God. If you have sons, I pray that you are preparing them to a similar standard and helping them grow into their own responsibilities.

And if you have sons that may be hanging around my daughters, you might want to warn them about that nose thing.

I find the resistance of Democratic Party leaders to privatizing a portion of our Social Security accounts puzzling. Not that I'm shocked by partisanship or politics - that's expected. Nor am I surprised by a sense of vision that can't see farther than one step ahead - that's plain human nature and not the exclusive province of Democrats or Republicans.

No, the thing I can't figure out is which typical Democratic constituency is being served by their opposition. Is it the young, energized base? Not hardly - I can't imagine that anyone under age 30 has much hope they'll ever see a dime from Social Security in its present form. Is it the unions? Don't think so - union memberships are used to having their pension funds managed for a healthy return (do you think CALPERS management would last long investing for a 3% return?). The Hollywood Set? Perhaps - these people are used to saying lines written for them by others and are capable of projecting impressive outrage or heart-rending grief, but I don't think many of them are spending a lot of time trying to decide whether the direct deposit option is right for them. The Northeastern elites? Again unlikely - though isn't it fun to think what our political culture would be like today if Papa Joe Kennedy had thrown all his money into T-bills?

I guess that leaves those people dependent upon government checks for their living expenses. In which case, holding the course and steering Social Security into an obvious crash and burn scenario clearly indicates that it's really about power and not the general welfare.

I haven't seen enough of President Bush's proposals to determine if it's the right course - and I'm not even convinced that, constitutionally, this is the government's responsibility in the first place, but I do know that a formula of fewer workers, more retired people with longer lifespans, and ever increasing costs is about as stable as, oh, Howard Dean.

The scope of the problem is especially well laid out in the latest The American Enterprise magazine. Editor Karl Zinsmeister in his Bird's Eye column cites what Democrat Bob Kerrey and Republican Warren Rudman said a couple years ago:

"Suppose a member of Congress introduced legislation called the Social Security Do Nothing Act. Under this bill, promised retirement benefits would be cut...by 35 percent for today's newborns. Alternatively, payroll taxes would go up by roughly 40 percent.... These are the choices under the Do Nothing Plan."

Zinsmeister also provides a detailed description of everything that was happening, politically or otherwise, the year Social Security was passed. There was an exciting new entertainment media called radio, and hot inventions like the electric typewriter and the ballpoint pen. 68% of the U.S. had electricity and 32% had telephones. Life expectancy was 59 years and a few months. Against that backdrop he asks:

So: Do you want to base your security in old age on a program engineered at the same time as the Model A and the vacuum-tube radio? Has work changed much since the era when slopping pigs for Auntie Em was a typical job? Does the boundary between state and individual look different now that the USSR has gone from progressive polestar to oppressive flop? Has American finance advanced from the decades when the only choices for ordinary savers were the passbook, the mason jar, or the mattress? Are the retirement goals of Americans still the same as in the days when the Bambino retired? Or is it time for Social Security to enjoy a major-league update?

The answer, I think, is obvious. Nothing but a government welfare program could ever last this long in unimproved form. Our transportation networks, our medical services, our economy are all light-years better than they were in 1935. So why are we still stuck with a gramophone/Hupmobile/fountain pen system of public pensions?

Aside from this common sense observation, his article also notes that our already mind-boggling, acknowledged, national debt does not even mention future Social Security and Medicare benefits:

...The unfunded entitlements of the New Deal and Great Society are collapsing on themselves. For perspective, start with the fact that our officially acknowledged national debt, source of much caterwauling, currently totals $7.6 trillion. Unfortunately, the government's promises of future Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements are not counted in our official debt. Those obligations pile up off the books, out of sight, and out of mind. But they are real obligations that will have to be paid. And when economists sit down and do the math on those commitments, the totals are staggering: The retirement checks promised to today's population add up to $10 trillion more than the payroll-tax revenues slated to flow in over the next generation.

That dwarfs our on-budget debt. Put together our official debt and our unfunded Social Security obligations and you have a sum larger than the entire value of all the companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Our Social Security deficits are real, scary, and unsustainable, no matter what Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid may say.

I encourage you to use the link and read the entire article on-line (heck, I encourage you to buy a subscription to the magazine for that matter). I think you'll find that whoever the Democratic leadership thinks they're looking out for, it's probably not you - unless you happen to be in Congress, that is.

Facts and proof can be sticky things for academics - especially when they prove you're a liar. This article in the February 19th Guardian reports that German anthropologist and professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - who in his 30 year career had claimed to have found the missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans - has been shown to have falsified dates, fabricated evidence and plagiarized other researchers.

His "finds" such as the supposedly 36,000-year-old "Hahnhöfersand Man", "Binshof-Speyer Woman" and "Paderborn-Sande Man" were all misdated by tens of thousands of years (the latter, in fact, was determined to have died in the 1700s - A.D., that is).

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Protsch's earthshaking - and textbook rewriting - discoveries had lead to a prominent and rather lavish lifestyle, suggesting that if his ethics and motives had themselves been submitted for carbon dating they would have proven to be among the oldest known to man.

As for carbon-dating, I'm opposed. I tried it once and it left my hands even messier than from reading the newspaper.

Be sure to check out Scrappleface for its funny take on the story.

The StarTribune had this article in today's edition, headline: "Local Officials Blogging for Readers". It's about local government entities (no, not the NARN) using blogs.

1. Got home. 2. Unloaded the car. 3. Flipped on the computer and started checking my favorite blogs after two days without internet access. Step 3 always used to be to check the headlines from the accumulated newspapers, but it's a new era. Couldn't have missed much, it's only two days, right?

Whoa - Hunter S. Thompson shot himself to death! I was surprised, but not shocked, I guess. (And why isn't there a punctuation mark that indicates suprise but not shock? I mean if we can have a colon and a semi-colon, can't we have a semi-exclamation?) Not that I'd ever given it a lot of thought, but I just figured that when he died he'd go out like a kamikaze moth, wings flaming, spiraling down into the fire - and filing one last report. Or that maybe he'd just disappear. Mysterious circumstances would be cited.

I turned to my bookcases, looking for my well-thumbed paperback collection of Thompson's best, The Great Shark Hunt. Gone, dammit, when did that happen? I'd picked up the book shortly after I got out of college, a journalism degree stuffed in the bottom of my luggage while I wondered why I'd ever pursued such a thing. By that time Thompson had already created his "brand" (a novel concept at that time) and was well on his way to becoming a caricature of himself. But when I read him I again felt the surge and the spark to wield words to bring a reader into a different light, especially such classics as his early reporting on the Hell's Angels and the L.A. "Brown Power" movement. It was so energizing after dealing with all the Woodward and Bernstein wannabees (or "Woodsteins" as one of my profs called them). I'd return to the book often over the years when I had trouble remembering what good writing looked like.

Thompson brought a subjective, experiential voice to stories that was brand new. I suppose there had always been a "you are there" aspect to the best reporting up until that time, but he took it to the "I am here, you are here, and man, what a rush!" level. He was referred to by some as "the new media" and credited with creating "gonzo" journalism, though in my mind the term came to be associated more with a way of living than a way of writing. Nevertheless, I think he put the first emphatic boot into the door that eventually opened the way to the blogosphere. Some may see that as a reach, or as trivializing his talent, but his voice - or at least the space his voice carved out - is very much a part of many of the best "citizen journalist" efforts. Of course, the subjectiveness he offered also lead to many of the abuses in the now mainstream media that also helped lead to the blogosphere.

Not all will agree, of course (Mitch Berg), and I certainly don't hold up Thompson's excesses and decline as models. In his latter years he became, perhaps inescapably, a parody of himself, but I'd check in from time to time with his "Hey, Rube" columns for ESPN.com. But I couldn't read him, however, without picturing Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury character, Duke (I suppose Thompson's death means Trudeau gets to keep his lungs in his chest after all). And as much as I think he contributed to our current communications culture I acknowledge that his example has unfortunately also spawned those who think that attitude and over-medication alone are sufficient to pass for genius.

They miss the point. And I miss my copy of "The Great Shark Hunt."

My wife (aka Night Visions) and I are taking off momentarily for a couple of days R&R and mushy talk. Posting will be light, if at all, until Monday evening.

Note: Filings will be an ongoing section of this blog where the posts focus specifically on issues of Christian life. The name comes about because "filings" are the natural by-product of Proverbs 27:17: "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

Stones Cry Out posted earlier this week some observations on Ron Sider's book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, based on Sider's own article about the book that appeared in Christianity Today's Books and Culture.

According to Sider, there is little statistical evidence to show that the lifestyles of evangelicals in America are much different from those of the rest of the world around them. In areas such as divorce, promiscuity, tithing and more, separate surveys by the Gallup and the Barna organizations show evangelicals are virtually the same as their neighbors when it comes to what we'd call virtue. (Be sure to go over to Stones and read the post and the related comments).

I don't know Sider's overall philosophy, agenda or the fruit in his life, or the way the questions were worded by the Gallup and Barna organizations, but this is worth each of us examining ourselves. Does my behavior line up with my beliefs? What would someone observing my behavior think my beliefs are? Does my life give people an opportunity to draw closer to God, or turn away because I have nothing better to offer them than what they've already got? Am I renewing my mind, learning to know God through his word, even if it puts me at odds with the conventional reasoning (of any flavor) that's around me? Can it be seen in me?

Update:

Churches United in Ministry and the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition think it's the proper exercise of their faith to exhort the government to take from everybody in order to help the poor (see my earlier post). Setting aside for the moment the question of - if their efforts are successful - how much of this money will survive the legislative process and ever end up in the hands of those its supposedly aimed at, I have realized that maybe these groups and I aren't really so far apart.

I mean, what if these groups, representing mainline churches and synagogues, were to put their philosophy into practice within their own congregations? That is, what if they said that they could no longer rely on freewill offerings, but in order to support social and economic justice they were morally obliged to assess a mandatory tax on every one of their members, based on a fixed rate they had prayerfully considered? To make it all appear legal they could let their members vote on it.

I wonder how many would vote with their feet?

Chad the Elder of Fraters Libertas, by the power vested in him, extended his scepter and accepted The Night Writer into the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers.

He said the Atomizer would stop by soon to administer the painful initiation. I think he and the Minfidel will like each other.

It's been a good day.

I was thinking more Nigel Tufnel than Nihilist in Golf Pants when I extended my list of reasons for conservative blogging in Minnesota to 11. It was, because, you know, 11 is more than 10.

Perusing the NIGP's blog today, however, I see that he has pretty much staked out the whole top 11 list concept. Oh well, great minds and all that. I apologize to him for unintentional poaching.

You know, the concept of a nihilist golfer conjures quite an image. Do golf pants even come in Goth? Are they black plaid? Golfing with him could be interesting, but with that name I'm not letting him keep score.

The Minfidel has gone back to his cage, I think, leaving me to figuratively wipe the spittle off of the computer monitor and otherwise clean up.

Reading his post, I'm reminded of Micah 6:8, "You know what is good to do, for the Lord has shown you: act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." It seems to me that there is justice, mercy and humility in seeking the well-being of others, especially the vulnerable. It's been my take, however, that God's desire is that we demonstrate, or develop, our personal piety by making the decision in our own lives, and acting accordingly.

If God's desire is simply to feed the hungry and house the homeless, he's certainly done bigger miracles. I think God wants us to learn or gain something as well, and gives us free will to choose. Mandating that others pay for something through taxes - regardless of their own intent or will - doesn't fulfill the mission.

In other words, when I finally stand before God, and should he ask me if I looked after the poor, I don't think I can get by just by saying, "Well, I paid my taxes."

OK, the Night Writer is a nice guy, but he worries too much about hurting people's feelings. I, the Minfidel, agreed to post here from time to time on Minnesota issues because too much "Minnesota Nice" has seeped into NW and somebody's got to be able to tell it like it is. Wimp. And that's me, the Minfidel - a non-believer when it comes to the Minnesota legislature being God.

Anyway, Shot in the Dark posted earlier this month about the day he realized he was far from being the lone conservative blogger in Minnesota. He wondered why this state produces so many right-leaning blogs. Well, duh. I typed the first seven things that came into my head into his comment box. Now that I've elbowed my way onto this blog, I'd like to repeat those reasons, plus a few more now that I've had time to think. I was going to do a "Top 10" but that's overdone. You see, mine goes to 11.

Reasons for Right Thinking MN Blogs:
1.Plagues. Minnesota is plagued by mosquitos and liberals. While slapping a mosquito brings some satisfaction, slapping a liberal gets you sent to Anger Management. Therefore we blog.
2. The need for an outlet. The StarTribune and Pioneer Press only publish one of our letters to the editor for every 8 or 10 from the left.
3. Familiarity breeds contempt. No one knows better that socialism doesn't work than someone who has experienced it up close.
4. Perspective. Transplants such as myself know that Republicans in Minnesota sound like Democrats in at least 46 other states.
5. A target-rich environment. If you can't find an example of mushy thinking or stubborn wrong-headedness every day, your body may have assumed room temperature (if it has, don't worry, you can still vote in Washington State).
6. Size of Audience. Each year you can be fairly certain that at least 50% of Minnesota high school graduates are able to read.
7. Frustration. "Conservative" leaders here are often as elusive as our walleye - and put up about as much fight.
8. Hope. Hubert Humphrey ran the Communists out of the Democratic Party here once; maybe it can happen again.
9. Wildlife management. We love the sound of a loon calling across the lake, but not from the editorial offices of the Strib.
10. Because ice fishing isn't as exciting as you might think.
11. Because it's not Nice.

Think I'm joking? Further proof of #5 above appeared in Thursday's Pioneer Press. Two groups from the religious left - Churches United in Ministry from the Duluth area and the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition - are planning to lobby the legislature to raise taxes for "social and economic justice," saying that it would be "immoral" not to.

"Much has been made of moral values during and since the presidential election," said the Rev. David Tryggestad of Duluth's Concordia Lutheran Church. "One moral value that has not been talked about much is poverty and homelessness. As long as we live in a society that tolerates such monumental disregard for the least of these among us, we are an immoral society, regardless of what we might say about other moral issues."

So, apparently, taking from others is the only "moral" solution. Let's see, I think it is the seventh commandment that says "don't steal" and the 10th that says "don't covet," but I'm not sure. Maybe this group could go look at the 10 Commandments monument in front of the Duluth City Hall and get back to me. Oops, too late for that.

I do know the fifth commandment is that "do not kill" one. Since they are concerned about "the least of these among us" I assume Churches United in Ministry and Joint Religious Legislative Coalition will next lobby the Legislature to stop abortion, although it doesn't appear to be a priority on the JRLC web site.

The Wall Street Journal, Columbia Journalism Review and other mainstream media - made up of Journalist Truth-seeker Priests - have had a mostly negative reaction to the Eason Jordan affair where Jordan, head of CNN news, resigned under pressure after reportedly claiming on multiple occasions - without offering evidence - that U.S. troops were targeting journalists in Iraq. Considering the actions of Mr. Jordan, that's not surprising. Oh, wait, what they're really upset about is the actions of the bloggers! They have decried the witch-hunt mentality and described bloggers as "knuckledragging mouthbreathers" - or was that knucklebreathing mouthdraggers? All I know is that all the knuckledragging makes it painful to type.

[If you're not familiar with the Eason Jordan story as it has developed over the past few weeks, you can read a timeline on Easongate.com here.]

As a brand new blogger I can't claim any credit or share any blame for being one of the Barbarians at the Gatekeepers, but I did have the experience of watching this story develop from the very beginning as I researched the blogosphere in preparation for launching The Night Writer. The behavior I saw was pretty consistent with what was drummed into me by my professors and editors at the major journalism school that - perhaps grudgingly - saw fit to give me a diploma a couple of decades ago.

First, an eye-witness to the event (and someone not normally associated with any of the conservative blogs) posted his description of what Mr. Jordan said and the reactions of other conference attendees (including members of the U.S. Senate). The first reaction in the blogs was to ask if others could corroborate the story. Several blogs, using their own initiative, found people who had been at the scene and could corroborate. These bloggers also pursued and received statements from Senators Frank and Dodd, and reported Mr. Jordan's clarification. Some did further research that turned up previous statements by Mr. Jordan in public forums that were consistent in tone and content with the Davos statements and were also presented without evidence. Mr. Jordan himself was also contacted, and he responded to certain bloggers with a "clarification" of what he said and the context of his comments.

When other WEF attendees who had heard the original statements contradicted Mr. Jordan's clarification, the bloggers identified the person at the WEF responsible for managing the recordings and transcripts from the Forum, interviewed him and sought a tape or transcript of the original remarks to establish what was true. The tape was originally promised, and then that promise was rescinded. The WEF defended withholding the tape to defend their "non-attribution" policy and preserve an atmosphere that would allow future speakers and panelists to speak freely. I note that this policy is similar to the one the White House and Vice President Cheney took in regards to discussions with key energy company executives early in President Bush's first term. The bloggers reacted to this embargo in a manner very similar to the way the media reacted to Mr. Cheney's position.

Blogs on both the left and the right began to press this issue and ask why the mainstream media was ignoring a story that raised questions about the true views and intentions of a high-ranking person with a significant influence over what messages a large portion of the population receives. Even given Mr. Jordan's influence, this might not have been a big story, but the ensuing stonewalling served to inflate, rather than deflate, the controversy. All in all, while there may have been some elements on the fringe of the developing story who were more reactionary, it was a methodical, "what are the facts" approach that showed initiative, perseverance and accountability in getting confirmation from sources. In fact, the ongoing accounts of Michelle Malkin, LaShawn Barber, and Ed Morrissey (CaptainsQuartersblog) and many others, though a bit heated toward the end, could be a good case study on how to responsibly follow a developing story.

Rather than acknowledge - let alone celebrate - the process, the MSM reacted as if it had been hustled, when instead it had been out hustled. The WSJ editorial board even described themselves, in comparison to bloggers, as reasonable adults able to determine what is or isn't newsworthy and essentially indicating that only they and their knighted brethren were qualified to pursue the Holy Grail (truth). They were like King Arthur in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" trying to sound reasonable but becoming more and more frustrated until finally shouting "Bloody Peasant!" at an annoying serf. This of course gives the blogosphere the opportunity to respond in kind, "Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? That's what I'm all about! Help, I'm being repressed!"

The worst thing for the MSM about this latest scandal isn't that one of their own supposedly self-defenestrated (jumped or pushed, you decide), but that they completely missed the lesson of the Trent Lott/Swift Boat Vets/Dan Rather/Eason Jordan "kerfuffles", and that is that the blogosphere and the world beyond is made up of multitudes of responsible adults who may not need or appreciate such paternalism from their watchdogs.

The mainstream media may continue to see itself in the role of gatekeeper; what it can't see is that thanks to the growth and accessibility of the new media, the fence is knocked down.

Update:

If you're reading this and want some additional perspectives on the aftermath of Eason Jordan's resignation, I suggest visiting Jay Rosen's Pressthink blog for this take and related comments. Jay's not typing with his knuckles.

I was in high school when the Citizens Band (CB) radio craze was at its peak. In the rural part of the country where I lived, it seemed as if everyone, including all my friends I rode with, had a CB radio except me.

For those too young to remember, folks would install CBs in their cars and drive around talking to their friends or anyone who happened to be listening in. Ostensibly (a word seldom used by CBers) drivers were on the lookout for "Smokies" (as in Smokey the Bear), which was code for the Highway Patrol - the sworn enemy of drivers and CB enthusiasts who liked to exceed the new 55 mph speed limit. Since sharing the location of Smokies was borderline illegal, and speeding definitely so, most radio users also came up with clever radio names, or "handles" for themselves to mask their true identities - or to project a certain image. An entire jargon of code words and numbers developed to further identify membership in the subculture.

In reality, though, folks just liked to talk and to feel like a part of a community - especially one that had a kind of renegade populist sensibility - and to revel in the semi-anonymity their radios gave them. Some spouted their colorful (in their minds, anyway) philosophies, others talked about the mundane, and some, well, were just adding to the noise.

Not to stretch things too far, but I see a lot of similarities between blogs and CB radios. Growing popularity, community, clever aliases, a unique jargon (MSM, trackbacks, pings, trolls, memes and much more) - and, regardless of political philosophy, that delicious sense of rebellion. I never did get a CB radio, but now I've got a blog - and my own chance to add to the noise.

Roger that.