Americans looking for evocative language from their public figures in 2009 had to turn to the anti-Obamas. It wasn't hard to find them – they have dominated the national soapbox since mid-year, outdoing each other in their preposterousness.

Picking the choicest quotes of 2009 is, hence, not quite the uplifting affair it might have been in 2008, when Mr. Obama was still compelling and Republicans still aspired to more than the political equivalent of demolition derby. The past 12 months have served up more sinister stuff.

Take Glenn Beck, the Fox News host who emerged last year as the U.S. right's conspiracy-theorist-in-chief. Government ownership of General Motors, he warned, enables the Obama administration to spy on Americans by way of the OnStar GPS devices installed in GM products: “I just don't believe in giving that kind of technology to this government.”

Sarah Palin launched her crusade against Obamacare with this: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's death panel so his bureaucrats can decide … whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

And Michele Bachmann, another syntactically challenged Republican politician on the rise, greeted a Dec. 15 rally against the Democrats' proposed health-care reform by crying: “That is our wish for fellow citizens here in the United States – for freedom, not for government enslavement.”

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”)

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

Sarah Palin has put a new face and voice to the long-standing, powerful, but inchoate movement in US political life that one might see as a mutant variety of Poujadism, inflected with a modern American accent. There are echoes of the Poujadist agenda of 1950s France in its contempt for metropolitan elites, fuelling the resentment of the provinces towards the capital and the countryside towards the city, in its xenophobic strain of nationalism, sturdy, paysan resistance to taxation, hostility to big business, and conviction that politicians are out to exploit the common man.

[. . .]

Most large American cities, especially in the West, are situated in counties that extend far beyond the city limits. Liberal urban governments with high property-tax rates and progressive environmental policies wield great power (some say tyranny) over their rural hinterlands, delivering ukases about land use and conservation: brush-cutting is to be limited to 40 per cent of the property; ‘setbacks’ of 100 feet are required from streams and wetlands; new churches are denied building permission because they are deemed ‘large footprint items’ in ‘critical habitat areas’ etc. So the householder or farmer sees ‘the city’ making unwarranted infringements of his God-given right to manage his land as he pleases, and imagines his precious tax-dollars being squandered on such urban fripperies as streetcar lines and monorails. These local quarrels spread to infect whole states. In Washington state, where I live, almost every ill that befalls people in the timberlands and agricultural regions, far from any city, is confidently attributed to ‘liberals from Seattle’, a nefarious conspiracy of wealthy, tree-hugging elitists with law degrees from East Coast universities, whose chief aim is to destroy the traditional livelihoods of honest citizens living on either side of the Puget Sound urban corridor.

When Ms. Bachmann accuses Mr. Obama of holding “anti-American views,” or when Ms. Palin decries “the agenda-driven policies being pursued in Copenhagen,” they feed into the same anger that drives thousands of Americans to show up for “tea parties,” where they give voice to many who feel dispossessed. “They refuse to listen” is the slogan of the Tea Party Patriots. It expresses the frustration of those who feel their country and their government have been usurped by Mr. Obama and his “socialist” cohorts.

The tea party movement has sent the Republican establishment (what's left of it) into a state of panic. You know what they say about imitation? A recent Republican National Committee Internet ad against Mr. Obama's health-care reform features a series of speakers uttering, in succession, the same plea: “Listen to me!”

That such a volatile and vitriolic faction as the tea party movement is now influencing the conduct of the party of Lincoln is indicative of the desperate state of Republicanism, which has embraced the paranoid style in a manner that would make even Mr. Goldwater cringe. At the party's meeting this month in Hawaii – which, at least if you believe what's written on his birth certificate, is where Mr. Obama came into the world – Republicans will decide whether to impose a “purity test” on prospective candidates seeking the GOP nomination in the 2010 congressional elections. If adopted, those who fail to profess their faith in at least eight of 10 core beliefs would be deprived of RNC backing and money.

Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, and Patricia Hewitt, the former health secretary, sent a letter to fellow Labour MPs asking for support for the measure.

Immediately there were fears among Mr Brown’s supporters that Cabinet heavyweights could be secretly backing the plan.

Mr Hoon, who the Daily Telegraph named this morning as a likely plotter against Mr Brown, is a very close friend of Alistair Darling, the Chancellor. Mr Darling has been at odds with Mr Brown in recent days over issues like how to pay down the deficit.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, has also reportedly been unhappy with some aspects of the Prime Minister’s recent performance.

It is the gravest threat to Mr Brown’s leadership since James Purnell walked out of the Cabinet in June. Mr Brown was able to hang on to power after other Blairite ministers backed the Prime Minister.

In the latter the pair wrote: “As we move towards a General Election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

“This could be done quickly and with minimum disruption to the work of MPs and the Government. Whatever the outcome the whole of the party could then go forward, knowing that this matter had been sorted out once and for all.”

They urged supporters of Mr Brown to back the plan so that the question is resolved.

They added: “This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest. The continued speculation and uncertainty is allowing our opponents to portray us as dispirited and disunited. It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target.

Opposition politicians lambasted Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision Wednesday to suspend Parliament for the next two months as a politically opportunistic and despotic attempt to avoid scrutiny.

“Mr. Harper is showing that his first impulse when he is in trouble is to shut down Parliament,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said in the wake of news that Parliament had been prorogued.

But the government maintained that its decision to not have Parliament sit through most of the winter was a routine move that would allow for a two-week parliamentary truce during the Winter Olympics in February.

The move will kill dozens of the government's own bills, while leaving in limbo a parliamentary inquiry into Afghan detainees. It will also pave the way for Conservative control of the Senate.

And prorogation sets up a number of confidence votes on economic issues in the spring, at which point the opposition will determine whether Canada goes to the polls for a third time in four years.

Mr. Harper called Governor-General Michaëlle Jean Wednesday morning to ask her to give a Speech from the Throne on March 3 – delaying Parliament's return by 22 sitting days – and allowing the government to table a budget on March 4.

More than 30 bills will die on the order paper, with more than half of them part of the government's tough-on-crime agenda. But the Prime Minister's Office said the goal is to continue focusing on the economy, with consultations on budgetary matters in the next two months.

“This is the time to recalibrate, consult and deliver the next stage of our plan that we outlined last year in Budget 2009,” said spokesman Dimitri Soudas.

He said that Canada has done relatively well during the recent global recession, but said “we're not out of the woods yet.”

Mr. Soudas added the government will file five vacancies in the Senate in the near future, providing the Conservatives with more seats than the Liberals in the Upper Chamber.

New Senate committees will be formed when Parliament is reconvened, putting the Conservatives in the driver's seat for the first time since Mr. Harper came to power in 2006. The government will still be short of an outright majority in the 105-seat Senate, given the presence of five independents, but will enjoy a “governing minority” with 51 seats.

But the opposition is particularly angry that the government, through prorogation, is shutting down the parliamentary committee into the treatment of Afghan detainees.

Brison/St-Pierre Christmas card
Originally uploaded by rfmcdpei

The overwhelming response has been very positive," Brison said from Windsor, N.S. "There's always a very, very tiny minority of bigots. It's their problem, it's not my problem."

At least one news website had to shut down its comments section running under a story about the card. The Globe and Mail web editor said the section was shut down because of "hateful and homophobic remarks."

Toronto Star blogger Susan Delacourt tried a pre-emptive approach: she closed off comments before any vitriol could be posted.

"So crazy hateful people should probably just walk away from the keyboard now," she wrote. "Yes, backward, just like that, slowly, hands in the air. There you go. Get outdoors; it'll be good for you."

Brison is one of the few openly gay members of Parliament. He married his partner in 2007, two years after same-sex marriage became legal in Canada. He easily won re-election last year.

The card features the two men standing in a field separated by their golden retriever, Simba, in Brison's rural riding of King-Hants.

It's the first time the couple have sent out a Christmas card together. The picture came from a photoshoot they were given as a wedding gift.

he United Church of Canada and other Canadian churches are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain why one of his cabinet ministers accused them of being anti-Semitic.

The United, Catholic and Anglican churches are part of KAIROS, an aid group that was shocked to hear Immigration Minister Jason Kenney say its funding was lifted as part of the Conservatives' effort to cut off anti-Semitic organizations.

"It's a horrible charge to make, and to do it with so little thought cheapens the reality of anti-Semitism in the world and diminishes the very careful attention that it deserves," said United Church spokesperson Bruce Gregersen. "We're quite disappointed in the government on this.

"The policies of KAIROS have all been approved by the collective board of KAIROS, so in a sense what Mr. Kenney is doing is accusing Canadian churches of being anti-Semitic and I think that's really unfortunate," Gregersen said in an interview.

Sam Carrière, director of communications for the Anglican Church of Canada, said the church supports a statement released Friday by KAIROS, which condemned Kenney's remarks as false and warned the Harper government against letting politics dominate Ottawa's foreign aid priorities.

Besides the United and Anglican churches, Toronto-based KAIROS's members include the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Mennonite Central Committee – Canada.

Working with 21 partner organizations around the world, KAIROS sponsors projects promoting social and economic justice in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

Canada's development community appeared stunned after Kenney, in a speech in Jerusalem, cited Ottawa's decision to end 35 years of funding for KAIROS as an example of the Conservatives' push to cut funding for anti-Semitic groups.

KAIROS was "defunded," Kenney said, because it took a leadership role in "the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign" against Israel.

"Minister Kenney's charge against KAIROS is false," the group said in its public response.

KAIROS has raised questions about Israeli government policies but rejected the idea of a national boycott against Israel two years ago, its executives pointed out.

"To label KAIROS's criticism of Israeli government actions as `anti-Semitic' silences dissent and honours no one," the statement said. "KAIROS has a clear position of support for the legitimate right of the Israeli people to a safe and secure state."

In this version of events, Joe Lieberman is not acting on his own to make the bill as unpleasant to liberals as possible. Instead, Lieberman is simply doing what Obama wants him to do: stripping out the parts of the bill that the health-care industry doesn't like, while keeping in the parts that the industry does like. Greenwald notes that Lieberman has received no criticism from the White House for doing this. Rather, the White House has reserved its criticism for Howard Dean, who has pointed out just how corporate-friendly the bill has become and who has publicly called for the defeat of the bill.

This is politics the DLC way: a big wet sloppy kiss for corporate interests and a flip of the bird to the party's liberal base. These are the principles that Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has espoused throughout his political career, and presumably that's why Obama made him Chief of Staff in the first place.

If this is what's really going on, then Obama is a DLC Democrat, and always has been. Those who defend Obama, saying that he was helpless to influence events, and that it was all Rahm's fault, or all Joe's fault, are in denial. It's no use crying, "If only the Tsar knew!" because, as always, the Tsar has known, and approved, all along.

There were two major factors that made last December’s opposition coalition a tough sell and, ultimately, likely doomed it to failure: the presence of the Bloc Quebecois if only on the tertiary, and the unpopularity of Stephane Dion. The fact we’d just had an election that had increased Conservative seat count didn’t help any either. But what if Dion and the BQ weren’t in the equation – does a coalition become more viable?

Some numbers today from pollster Angus Reid suggest that, while it would still be an uphill battle to sell it, under the right circumstances a Liberal/NDP coalition may not be as toxic as originally thought by some, including, well, me.

Asked if they’d support formal power-sharing coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, 42 per cent said yes and 47 per cent said no, with 11 per cent undecided. Those 11 per cent would be critical, and much would demand on the circumstances at the time: electoral result, issues of the day, and so forth. Some 64 per cent of Liberals would support a coalition, and 70 per cent of NDPers. Interestingly, a majority of Green supporters, 51 per cent, would be opposed.

Back to the coalition question, while it appears the battle wouldn’t be as uphill as I’d previously thought, I still think it’s highly unlikely. For starters, I think both parties would need to signal openness to the possibility before an election. You can do it after, but to try to arrange one after an election when you went into it saying no makes the sales battle all the much harder. It could be overcome, but it wouldn’t be a good start.

Declaring openness to a coalition before an election though is highly unlikely, at least for the Liberals. The NDP would probably be fine with it. That’s because the possibility of a coalition going into an election will bleed Liberal votes to the NDP. The Liberals run to win, and part of that strategy is always going to be “we’re the only party that can stop Harper and form a government” which means solidifying the anti-Harper vote in the Liberal column. Openness to a coalition gives license to NDP swing voters to avoid going Liberal to stop Harper, ie. voting strategically. I know that’s cynical, but this is politics.

The Government has agreed to create a state called Telangana, acceding to demands of a movement that dates from Indian independence in 1947, when states were demarcated roughly along linguistic lines. “The process of forming the state of Telangana will be initiated,” Palaniappan Chidambaram, the Interior Minister, said. The announcement followed an 11-day hunger strike by K. Chandrasekhar Rao, head of a party that had campaigned for the state on the ground that the regional government had neglected its northern areas.

“We are concerned about the health of K. Chandrasekhar Rao,” the minister said. “We request him to withdraw his fast immediately. We also appeal to all students to withdraw their agitation to help to restore normalcy.” Speaking from his hospital bed in Hyderabad, Mr Rao expressed his thanks to the Government.

The area has its own distinct dialect and culture, and used to be part of the princely state of Hyderabad, the largest in India, which was amalgamated with the rest of the country by force in 1948. Telangana could have a population of up to 30 million, mainly Telugu speakers.
Related Links

A decision has yet to be made on whether the new state will include Hyderabad, which rivals Bangalore as a base for Indian and multinational companies including Microsoft and Google. Supporters of the new state argue that it should include Hyderabad, because of its historic link, but the regional government is anxious not to lose control of the huge investments it has made in the city.

Opponents of Telangana also worry that its creation could encourage similar movements, some of them violent, in regions across India, including West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland and Kashmir.

Last year the region around Darjeeling in West Bengal was paralysed by sometimes-violent protests by ethnic Gorkhas demanding a separate state called Gorkhaland. Three new states were created in 2000, when Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were divided to give rise to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.

The unknown insurgent, if he’s still alive and somehow following Canadian politics, must be cracking up at the Canadian chaos he’s unleashed.

The unidentified Taliban fighter, rescued from a severe Afghan beating by Canadian troops more than two years ago, is now threatening to force a public inquiry to be held in faraway snowy Ottawa and may yet terminate a mission-leading cabinet minister.

All this because he was detained by suspicious Canadian soldiers back in mid-2006 with a scratched nose, had his picture taken to prove he didn’t have any serious injuries before being turned over to Afghan police where he was badly roughed up and promptly reclaimed by our sympathetic troops.

This one allegedly isolated situation forced Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk to mea culpa a humbling correction on Wednesday, admitting this was indeed the Exhibit A of a Canadian detainee surrendered to face Afghan-inflicted torture.

There is now clear and credible evidence that this government has lost deniability on the Afghan torture file and that diplomat Richard Colvin, whose damning testimony was so viciously ridiculed by the government and top generals, is gaining plausibility.

But nobody has taken a harder believability beating than the top military brass.

For the Chief of Defence Staff to suggest he stumbled on incendiary field notes just six hours before his defence minister was placed on the hot seat at a parliamentary committee, a report already published in the Globe and Mail, is beyond logical comprehension.

[. . .]

Mr. MacKay may have repeatedly misled the Commons by saying there were no credible cases of detainee torture, but only because the military insisted that was the case. The chain of command between the military and the minister links at the Chief of Defence Staff’s desk. If he’s in the dark, so is the government.

Yet the way the entire Conservative front bench, including a testy, albeit jetlagged Prime Minister Stephen Harper, remains angrily antagonistic and combative to questions on the file.

The Conservatives attack at every legitimate query as a slur to the uniform, when the opposition is making no such allegation.

The point is worth repeating, because the government clearly doesn’t get it. All evidence suggests Canadian soldiers showed considerable restraint when apprehending Taliban who were, after all, on a mission to kill them.

The political concern is whether anybody in the government or the military were aware of ongoing torture in Kandahar prisons while making ongoing transfers into its cells. If so, that’s called a war crime under international conventions.

The government’s ugly mood is amplified by behavior that has all the optics of obstruction, if not a cover up. They stonewalled a Military Police Complaints Commission probe of the allegations, threatened diplomat Colvin with legal consequences if he testified publicly, unleashed a character smear of his reliability when he did and reluctantly produced a blizzard of blacked-out documentation that, when the odd sentence did appear, conveniently showed no wrongdoing.

Canadians aren't buying the Harper government's assertion that there's no credible evidence Afghan detainees were tortured, a new poll suggests.

Indeed, The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates Canadians are twice as likely to believe whistleblower Richard Colvin's claim that all prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities were likely abused and that government officials were well aware of the problem.

The poll findings come just as the government is mounting a major counter-offensive to rebut the explosive testimony of Colvin, the former No. 2 at the Canadian embassy in Kabul and now an intelligence officer at the embassy in Washington.

Rick Hillier, the former chief of defence staff, and several other top military officials are scheduled to testify later today at a Commons committee that is investigating the torture claims.

Hillier has already said there was always concern about the treatment of prisoners transferred to Afghan prisons but that he doesn't remember the kind of "smoking gun" warnings Colvin says he repeatedly issued.

Hillier has his work cut out for him to convince Canadians, the poll suggests.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents said they believe Colvin's testimony to the committee last week.

In stark contrast, only 25 per cent said they believe the government's contention that the diplomat's claims are flimsy and not credible.

A majority in all regions - except Alberta where 41 per cent believed Colvin and 35 per cent the government - sided with the whistleblower.

Those who identified themselves as supporters of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives were most inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt. But even they were almost evenly split.

james_nicoll

Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged journalists to "shine light into dark corners" of government affairs during a speech late Saturday, but wouldn't take questions from reporters covering the event.

Harper, who is known for his sometimes prickly relationship with parliamentary reporters, made the comments during an ethnic media awards dinner in Markham, north of Toronto.

Freedom for Canadians goes hand-in-hand with journalistic freedom, he told the dinner guests gathered at Seneca College in Markham, home to thriving Asian communities.

Members of the ethnic press and their readers understand what it's like in countries where "truth is only what the state says it is" and journalists are co-opted as government mouthpieces or threatened with their lives, Harper said.

Things couldn't be more different here in Canada, he added.

"Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees," he said.

"Instead we believe strongly that Canadians' freedom is enhanced when journalists are free to pursue the truth, to shine light into dark corners, and to assist the process of holding governments accountable."

But shortly after making the speech and handing out awards, Harper was whisked through the black curtains behind the stage without taking questions from reporters.

The prime minister's staff said before the event, which was open to the media, that Harper would not be taking questions from reporters covering the event, which was organized by the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada.

[. . .]

Since Harper came to power, the schedule for cabinet meetings became shrouded in mystery, requests for routine information can take days or sometimes ignored altogether and delays in processing freedom-of-information requests has grown markedly.

His office also imposed new rules that allow Harper's staff to choose which reporter is allowed to ask him a question - a practice more commonly used in Washington by U.S. presidents.

Canada's Transport Minister John Baird on Tuesday among colleagues spread the simple message, "Thatcher is dead." The message reached members of the Canadian Parliament who attended a gala event in honor of Army families. Also, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was present.

As the Canadian news agency CanWestNews reported was to the consternation of whether the big news - especially feels the Canadian Conservative government party of the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher, who governed Britain from 1979 for eleven years combined, very.

Prime Minister Harper told immediately, the message can be verified by the death of the politician in Britain. But in 10 Downing Street one was surprised - Lady Thatcher, 84, was alive and kicking.

As it turned out a little later, Baird had said Transport Minister Thatcher, a very different - namely, his cat, which he had given in honor of the politician whose name.

This story sounds too good to be true. It is, however, assured as a "CanWestNews" spokesman SPIEGEL ONLINE: "Our chief political reporter was at the gala reception there and has seen the story live."

Members of the two-week-old press gallery of the P.E.I. legislature voted a local blogger out of the organization at a public meeting on Monday evening.

In an 11-2 vote, Stephen Pate lost his accreditation to cover the legislature as a member of the media. Pate runs a blog called the NJN Network.

The press gallery will recommend to Legislative Speaker Kathleen Casey that Pate be removed from the list of accredited media.

Gallery president Wayne Thibodeau, who is also the senior political reporter for the Charlottetown Guardian, argued Pate is not a journalist and that other press galleries in the country do not allow bloggers, lobbyists or special interest groups.

Pate described himself as a journalist, satirist and blogger, and said he occasionally advocates for people with disabilities. He argued the effort to vote him out was an attempt to stifle freedom of speech.

The press gallery of the P.E.I. governs media accreditation for the legislature. Non-media members can attend but cannot use the media room or second floor of the building.

Guardian Editor Gary Macdougall used the phrase “hobby journalists” to describe what bloggers do, and underlying the CBC panel discussion was the notion that we all need to consume this stuff called “the news” and that there’s a battle between bloggers and journalists to see who’s going to deliver it in the future.

Comparing journalists to bloggers is like comparing journalists to poets or novel writers or songwriters or graffiti artists or priests: yes, we all interpret the human condition in our own peculiar ways, but the blogger is no more treading on the domain of a journalist than the poet is.

I’m a committed and passionate blogger: it’s deeply woven into the fabric of how I live. But the exciting thing about blogging for me is not its perceived abilities to “recast the news landscape,” it’s the notion that regular everyday citizens have, in the Internet, a publishing platform the likes of which we’ve never seen: low cost, low barrier to entry, global distribution of words and images.

And what’s exciting about that has nothing to do with the product and everything to do with the process.

What happens when, for all intents and purposes, everyone has a printing press and a television studio and is responsible to no entity but their own conscience when using it? How does that change public discourse? How does that change how people think about themselves in relation to society’s institutions? In a world where anyone can publish anything at any time, how do we attach value to our own small bit of the dialogue?

If you happen to read what I write here, that’s great, but I’m not writing for you, and while I may be interested in your reaction to what I write, this blog is not about you, or what I’m writing about. It’s about how my life is enhanced by the very fact of writing itself.

That’s not journalism.