WHEN BLOGGERS RULE

"In the end I really don't care what I'm called, as long as it's not blogger."---MATT DRUDGE

I. THE ATTACK OF THE FIDDLING KLEAGLE

Step back a few weeks in time. In the immediate afterglow of the fall of Baghdad the President is cresting a wave of extraordinary popularity and support. The Democrats, of course, are hoping beyond hope to find some angle to take Dubya down one or two notches in the polls. Never relying on instinct or leadership ability when in unknown situations, they've always checked poll results before taking any action whatsoever. Now, however, they have a new option.

The Democratic leadership is fully aware of the Blogosphere (as are the Republicans). I've seen Capitol Hill servers on my hit lists, while big-blogger Scott Ott's Axis of Weasels comment (check the dance mix) has been quoted in the Senate. So, is it beyond the realm of possibility that Terry McAuliffe and his gang now cruise a few Blogs before taking bold decisive action?

Note this timeline:
May 1: President Bush (Commander in Chief) lands on USS Lincoln, Carrier returning from deployment during war.

May 1-5: Almost immediately, some right-leaning Blogs begin expressing doubts as to the wisdom of this event. And they raise very valid points, absolutely worthy of discussion. That discussion rages for several days through several comment sections of several very well-read Blogs. The lefty anti-Bush commenters have obvious responses deserving of immediate dismissal. But several pro-Bush types still express displeasure. Ignoring the envy-fueled hate posts from the left, the debate is actually one of the finest seen in the Blogosphere.

One week later: After consulting with polls and spin doctors, the Democrats boldly and decisively weigh in on the issue. Byrd and Waxman eventually receive a level of scorn rarely seen on the political stage. Bloggers take them to task. Having once again thoroughly miscalculated the mood of America, they rather quickly shut up and go away.

Byrd, it would seem, is the new sacrificial lamb of the Democratic Party. He can be portrayed as the "fiery old warrior going forth to battle the forces of evil" in the mainstream press. They can be counted on to enthusiastically endorse any Democratic Party idea, regardless of how utterly void of common sense or careful forethought. So Byrd gets to be the attack dog. If, as Standard bearer for the assault on George Bush, his championed cause gains the Democrats ground, then Hooray for good old Bob! He's our boy! If , however, he's shot down in a flame of public opinion, then, well, you know, he's actually kind of an out of touch old geezer anyhow, and definitely not-the-future-of-the-party, right?

Really, we're talking about the fiddling kleagle here; a man who's ready to don his drool bucket. A man who must be checked daily by his handlers to ensure he didn't put his depends on over his pants. At least the Dems can be assured of his vote. Even as he drifts into senility he'll be casting votes against Republicans, convinced they are trying to rob him of his non-existent social security benefits. And of course, once he's too enfeebled to make it to the polls he'll have lots of folks willing to vote in his name. I'm sure, long after his death Byrd will be a frequent voter for the democratic cause.

But for now, he's merely the living trial balloon. The expendable one, as one way or another he's leaving the Senate before too long.

Suppose the Democrats, in checking public opinion in order to develop dynamic leadership strategy, note the minor ripple in the Blog world and wonder if they've found some chink in the armor?

"Hey," says Terry McAuliffe, "lets get 'em!"

"Hold on Terry, " says a less bold James Carville, "we can't risk ourselves. We're too important to the cause. We need a sacrificial lamb"

"You mean a sacrificial Byrd!" Terry fires back with a gleam in his eye. And the rest is history.

All this is imaginary, of course. But the subsequent history is not. Byrd did his best to stir the pot, but no one cares. The Dems have doubly miscalculated.

One: Byrd is at best contemptable to mainstream America, and intensely despised by many; with no redeeming qualities his outcries garner sympathy only for his opponents. This will not change. It's of great benefit to Republicans that he wasn't forced out as a consequence of his racist statements; now every time he approaches a microphone decent people can cry "Look, a racist! What will it say? Let's listen so that we may gain a better understanding of wrong-headed thinking."

Two: The carrier landing was appreciated by the military and the public. And no one was overly concerned that it cost money for the commander to visit the troops. Even the moderate lefties could grasp this. "Find a real cause, please? You're embarrassing us." The sacrificial Byrd part could kick in if the backlash is strong enough, but it's not, and the issue fades.

Byrd may consider himself fortunate that there were no Blogs to call him to task for his revealing remarks. More recently there's been a bit of chest thumping in the Blog community regarding the idea that "Blogs brought down Trent Lott" - I would hesitate to go that far. But is it at all possible that Blogs are looked at by policy makers, as another entry point into the American mind? Evaluators of the collective psyche would be remiss not to look at Blogs for this purpose. Certainly not as a final solution, but as another reference point. And, perhaps, one that is growing in importance.

Note this look at the topic from London via Instapundit.

Consider the Blogosphere as comparable, perhaps, to talk radio of the 1980's - a presence on the political landscape, looked at as not too stable just yet. The difference, of course, is that talk radio of the '80s was very few people, while the Blogosphere is a modern day Wild Wild West of disparate ideas.

II. A BRIEF LOOK AT SOME BEASTIES OF THE BLOGOSPHERE

THE HABITAT (THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE ON EARTH?)

Ancient Rome had its Forum; where people met, conducted business and debated the issues of the day. How fitting then that modern Rome has its own Forum...the Internet.

Transform yourself into a being of pure energy, pure thought, void of face and form, and travel electronically to a meeting place of ideas and expressions. What a marvelous opportunity, to have one's ideas expressed in a way that allows both criticism and support, while eliminating the potential for judgment based on the messenger; appearance and gender masked if you desire. Age? Not a factor. Fifteen or fifty, it's your thoughts and your ability to express them that matter, and nothing else. Race? Who cares? Ethnicity? Non-factor. If you come up with the solution to the crisis in Israel you can post it anonymously for the world, without being dismissed for being from Peoria.

Even those Bloggers fortunate enough to not need an assumed name are still little more then names (and sometimes faces) to the vast majority of their readers, with no real connection as corporate human beings. Proof? Those readers will say things to them via their comments or their own Blogs that they would never dare utter to a neighbor over the fence or a co-worker at an office party.

I fall into the category of "anonymous blogger." Strangely enough the reason I do this is so that I can give my real and honest opinion. I wish I didn't have to, and some day I won't, but for now such is life. You can, however, get a pretty accurate general depiction of who I am by reading my posts for a while. Many other Bloggers fall into this same category for much the same reason.

THE TROLL

Unfortunately, the anonymity of the Blogosphere opens the door for the Troll, annoying creatures who move through this system attacking and spreading hate. Anonymity in some cases foments viciousness, perhaps a trait suppressed in their corporal existence. "Troll" is just too cute a word for some of them. Read every Blog and it's comments posted on a given day (admittedly impossible) and you may swear that a significant number are written by people actually diametrically opposed to what they espouse; leading one to consider they exist merely to generate contempt for their subject matter. (Do note, however, the vast majority of Blogs and comments can be taken at face value.)

Who knows what inspires a Troll? A thrill at being annoying? A response to being ignored in the real world? Perhaps, I like to believe, though, that The Troll returns to the real world, having acted out their fantasy life in the Blogosphere, perhaps a little happier and better adjusted for having vented their frustrations here. Good for them. Maybe they won't kill coworkers now.

Of course, even the Troll can't ruin the Blogosphere as a great place to "meet" people. The desire of many in this regard is twofold; 1) to embrace those of like mind, to reinforce that you are not alone in thoughts and opinions and thus not the last sane person on earth; or 2) to understand those of differing opinion; to get some grasp, if you will, of what exactly went wrong in their developmental process, without having to offend a "real" person. Child abuse? Jilted at the Altar? What is the fundamental defect in your nature?!

(Of course, never to my knowledge has anyone in the Blogosphere convinced another to shout "Eureka! I was wrong!" on any issue of any merit. Even in the post-Iraq-war light of day the doomsayers, the "quagmire crowd," the "prophets of jihad" and the "WWIII tin foil hat brigade" are still claiming they were right all along, that there never were any WMDs!)

Ahhh...but find those like-minded individuals, your spiritual soul mates, and fly! The only people who think like me are other geniuses, don't you know?

Thus, the Blog reader is forced to become a thorough critic of new products and persona in the Blogosphere. Does this person bring something new to discuss? If not, does this person have something new and useful to add to the discussion? Does this person have a fresh perspective, an interesting voice?

Because we are all singers, after all. Some of Opera, some of Rock, some Jazz, some the Blues. Some are Rappers, and some Country. I respect the best artists of all genres. I have no time for the talentless, unless they have potential. I despise pretenders. Sing only that which is true to your heart. And practice developing that voice! Your thoughts on a topic are pointless if your voice is Roseanne's and your song is the National Anthem.

THE SIREN

The counterpoint to this of course, is the beautiful voice that spews hate. Like the Siren calling to all to come and crash on the rocks of bigoted or hateful ideologies. The Siren, then, is a nastier creature then a mere Troll. Of course, succumbing briefly to such a voice does no permanent harm to an individual, especially in the virtual forum. Perhaps the experience leaves them a bit wiser for future events, events that matter in the real world.

So what? Why care? Because the presence of the Siren, and the Troll, and the myriad of other less then savory characters that populate the Blogosphere, while providing half the "fun" are also the reason that the majority of the Blogosphere is still not ready for prime time.

Let's listen briefly then, to a Siren's song together.

The Siren, of course, can be a person or an idea, or both. An example? The Santorum case.

Many Bloggers from all over the political spectrum were quick to line up and denounce Santorum for what appeared to be a rabid anti-gay viewpoint. Santorum provided right-leaning Bloggers a chance to demonstrate their Libertarian, moderate views (since most are Republican on most other issues) and enabled them to express their unequivocal support for human rights. For Santorum bashers, however, there are three facts that are convenient to ignore.

1. At face value Santorum wasn't speaking directly about Gay Rights, he was addressing a larger legal point within the specific case. Attaching additional meaning and arguing against it is not valid debate. In fact, it's counter productive as it's just a way to avoid the real issue. This tactic is transparent to all but a few practitioners, and is unfortunately all too commonly seen here.

2, Ashcroft and Santorum are not leading death squads into peoples' bedrooms and hauling them off for unacceptable behavior.
From a Houston TV News site:
The case began in 1998, when a neighbor tricked police with a false report of a black man "going crazy" in John Geddes Lawrence's apartment. Police pushed their way in and found Lawrence having anal sex with another man, Tyron Garner.

Although Texas rarely enforced its antisodomy law, officers decided to book the two men and jail them overnight on charges of "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." They were each fined $200 plus court costs.

3. The entire attack on Santorum was orchestrated by the wife of John Kerry's campaign manager, and Kerry was the first to denounce his fellow Senator, thus demonstrating his unequivocal support for human rights. The last paragraph of the Fox story linked above:

Some Republican sources were quietly raising questions about the reporter who first quoted Santorum and who continued to report on the conflict it created. Lara Jakes Jordan is married to Jim Jordan, a former DSCC official who now manages Kerry's presidential campaign.

Here, for the record, is my take on the issue.

Now one would expect the left to lap this attack stuff up without question. When "centrists" or "moderates" do this it's disappointing, and leads one to question their "moderation". Expressing open mindedness by condemning people who think differently then you based on unquestioning acceptance of biased news reports is hardly the hallmark of intelligent public debate. Regardless of who's right or wrong, the questions I raised were not addressed by any of Santorum's many attackers in the Blogosphere. The shots taken at him came from the hip.

The Supreme Court, of course, is being called to consider its position on interfering with State laws as much as with the specific issue. By the way, quiz question for those who are outraged by any aspect of this case. How did the Supreme Court rule?

Sorry, trick question. They haven't yet. They are expected to any time now. If this is to be believed, two are solidly for, two against, and five justices undecided.

(Those who expressed great and terrible outrage at the behavior of a US Senator for speaking his mind can now contemplate their real motives. I give you a minute to shout Eureka! and then I'll accept your thanks.)

[Update - the Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the Texas law. The response from across the Blogosphere has been muted when compared to the attacks on Santorum during the initial wave of controversy. Many in the Blogosphere prefer personal attacks on individuals to issues of any real weight.]

In spite of much effort the Blogosphere did not bring down Senator Santorum. Shooting from the hip is rarely effective. A tempest in a teapot, and a perfect counter to those who claim Trent Lott's head is mounted on their wall. The voters of Pennsylvania will rightfully have the final say on the Senator's fate. All those Bloggers who are registered to vote there are encouraged to do so.

THE SIREN AND THE WOLF

But is the Blogosphere getting wiser? Another valid contrast point on the Siren issue may be the recent Paul Wolfowitz story. Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense, and has served in the Pentagon off and on under Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush. He was in the State Department for the first few years of the Reagan Administration. So his words carry some weight.

Wolfowitz has been twice mis-quoted in the mainstream media recently. First in Vanity Fair regarding WMD:

The quote (from DoD transcripts of a recorded phone interview):
...The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

The implication of a lot of the argumentation against acting -- the implication was that the only way to have the stability that we need in Iraq is to have a tyrant like Saddam keeping everybody in check -- I know no one ever said it that way and if you pointed it out that way they'd say that's not what I mean. But I believe that really is where the logic was leading.

Vanity Fair Quote: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

See the attraction of the Siren Song for the Left? But note the original quote; thought provoking and to the point. A real glimpse at how policy is made at the highest levels. Rather then debate that process openly, the interviewer twists it into something else and lets others attack. Why? Once the original un-edited quote is released the attackers look foolish. Both sides of any issue must watch for this if their debate is to have any validity.

The second mis-quote was in the London newspaper The Guardian, reporting statements made by Wolfowitz in Singapore regarding North Korea and Iraq. The actual quote (from DoD Transcripts):

Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

The Guardian Quote (perhaps repeating German reports):

"Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

To credit The Guardian, they did retract the quote once it was exposed as blatant lie.

(You can read a synopsis of the Wolfowitz misquotes, and a few other recent newspaper 'gaffes', here.)

To credit the Blogosphere, the Wolfowitz situation was handled quite differently then the Santorum story; with caution at the initial reports followed by indignation and mild outrage at their exposure as almost right. Of course an argument could be made that this is because Santorum was opposed to a popular cause, while the Iraq war (Wolfowitz) was supported by most Bloggers. Thus, the Santorum Siren was much more appealing then the Wolfowitz example. This however, implies a willingness to deny truth (or at least a wilingness to accept something less; the "willful suspension of disbelief" that is the hallmark of good fiction) when it suits the bloggers purpose, or casts dispersion on the validity of claims to value the truth. This does not increase the credibility of a new medium.

III. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

Interesting then, that a bloggers, (of whom so many are so often so eager to accept so much that they read as being gospel, without ever considering the possibility that they are being exposed to erroneous information or outright lies) have claimed responsibility for bringing down a couple of managers at the NY Times, who were guilty of doing essentially the same thing. The claim could be made that the Times should be held to a higher standard, but then that pretty much ends the case for Blogs ever being taken more seriously then supermarket tabloids.

And some shouldn't. Sadly some Bloggers are more willing then others to blindly accept anything they read as gospel, and then pass it on. And when the truth is revealed don't retract, just move to a new "story". I repeat myself:

Of course, never to my knowledge has anyone in the Blogosphere convinced another to shout "Eureka! I was wrong!" on any issue of any merit. Even in the post-Iraq-war light of day the doomsayers, the "quagmire crowd," the "prophets of jihad" and the "WWIII tin foil hat brigade" are still claiming they were right all along, that there never were any WMDs!

Case in point: The Whiskey Bar, a Blog that repeated the original Wolfowitz mis-quote on WMDs as conclusion to a collection of Bush administration WMD statements, the desired effect being to use the Wolfowitz statement as denouement exposing Presidential hypocrisy. Obviously the truth about this quote renders the entire piece pointless; but that truth is nowhere to be found on the site. No retraction can be found, nor can any of the Democratic, Clinton administration, or "world leader" quotes on the same subject. Even so this Blog garnered numerous links and kudos for this denial of truth. A "well written" Blog, assuredly. But one that heaps scorn upon (among others) the 101st Airborne. I don't pretend to know what percent of Americans consider Jimi Hendrix' old unit to be worthy of scorn or derision, but as long as the Blogosphere embraces the behavior it certainly can't expect to be embraced by mainstream America.

I came close to not mentioning this particular site in this post on the grounds that I recognize that the author is as much entitled to his free speech space on the internet as I am. Then I read his entry about watching a young girl he sees at his kid's elementary school graduation ceremonies who is dying of cancer. Her elementary school graduation too, and as she's wheeled on the stage to get her diploma, the author describes thinking how much braver she was then President Bush or the heroes of the Iraq war.

Has it come to this - a dying fifth grader fans the flames of an author's passionate hatred of the President and military - starts him wondering how he can use her in an anti-Bush post in his blog? Politicizing a little girl dying of cancer - in a blog? Are people actually so blinded by hate, or so driven by their own self interest that this is acceptable behavior? I hope it's just another fable from a website with a proven lack of integrity. Even if it's a fabricated story, it's easily the lowest thing I've ever seen in a Blog. Politicizing Paul Wellstone's funeral was tame compared to this - Wellstone was at least a politician. And of course the Palestinians gleefully danced in the streets of his comments section on this one.

I'm a real proponent of free speech. I defend the rights of any American to disagree with me. I state only that the this kind of hateful site, regardless of how well written, gives Blogs in general a bad name. When it's embraced by a significant number of other bloggers it certainly is not a good sign for possible future respectability of blogging as a whole.

But wait! There's more! Macaroni. I've discussed that site in another post . Once again, we are talking about a "good writer". An apparently intelligent person who has garnered support from lots of corners of the Blogosphere. On false pretenses, I hope. I don't believe any rational person would support this kind of activity. In this case, the Blogosphere (at least those who are victims of the author or aware of the behavior) recognizes and rebukes racism. However, the worst of the author's race baiting and general negativity occurs in the comments sections of other Blogs; perhaps leading those who are only familiar with her Blog to sympathize with an individual who is forced to spend an inordinate amount of space defending herself against accusers. A claim could be made that this is all done for the sake of notoriety and its impact on the hit counter. As such, that behavior may well be rewarded. Once again, this does not reflect positively on the Blogosphere. There's a difference between "exposure" and "exposed."

Blogs, have an intrinsic power to unite or divide. Even the briefest insight into the minutiae of an author's thoughts may be enough to start the process of erasing a lifetime of misunderstanding. (Or at least I'm naive enough to think so.) Many, including the two above, have chosen the divisive route. However, that which was meant for harm can be turned to good; even these can provide the insight into hatred that could help erase it. (Note, however, to up and coming Bloggers: If the sites above are your examples for how to be a rising star in the Blogosphere, enjoy your trip. I'll stay right here, thanks.)

POLICING THE SPHERE?

The Blogosphere tends to "police" itself; those who are good will thrive, those who are not will fade. But "good" is an undefined quantity; Soap Operas and "Celebrity" news shows draw more audience then C-Span. Some supermarket tabloids outsell the local papers. Much of that trend holds true on the internet; any Blogger can tell you the bizarre search engine requests that lead to visitors to their sites. They know what brings the readers in.

Certainly there's room for everyone, and all with the freedom to do so should be thankful they can post their thoughts and opinions without fear. Still, when integrity and truth take a back seat to agenda, when outrage and spite are used as drawing cards, then Blogs will never be considered any more reliable then tabloid journalism.

Much ado has been made lately about how important Blogs have been in bringing down people in the public eye; Trent Lott, Howell Raines, on and on. There's probably some truth to that. And whoever looses the next Presidential election I'm sure Bloggers will take credit for that too. People do read Blogs, after all. Perhaps not as many as watch Bill O'Reilly, but a growing number. But it's interesting isn't it, that negative results are the yardstick by which we choose to measure the success of our medium?

And what of Mr. O'Reilly? His recent comments, once the initial furious response subsides, should also be considered and addressed. His remarks are open to interpretation and should be clarified. Offhand dismissal of critics is not a good practice for any business, organization, group, or individual. In the O'reilly/Internet case, this is a two-way street as each party feels slighted by the other. The response of a Blog community in search of some respectability should be moral high ground; to demand that clarification, and not to assign meaning to his somewhat blurry commentary.

Mr O'Reilly, in launching a vague attack against unspecified foes, has cast a wide net. Clarify and specify, Bill: exactly who is libeling you? Is it the same crowd that was out to get Perot in '96? Is it Glenn Reynolds, Britneyfan95, ...or both?

And is there any conclusion to be drawn from the fact that O'Reilly's comments drew more heated criticism from more Blogs then Orrin Hatch's ill-considered remarks? Once again, the Celebrity outdraws the Senator, the difference being that one can whine about perceived injustice while the other can actually perpetrate it on the American people. O'Reilly, however, received a barrage of contempt and promises to turn the channel. Hatch was commented on briefly and dismissed. Interesting priorities indeed. I would speculate that within six months only one's statements will be remembered by Bloggers, becoming forever a part of internet lore.

And what discussion of the down side of Blogs could be complete without mention of the wonderful sophomoric Blogfights that rear up now and then? When someone says something about someone else, a third party repeats it, and suddenly everyone is linking everyone as an apparent feud erupts. All involved get to relive their days as middle-schoolers; except these days the links mean swapping readers and driving each other up the ecosystem ladder to their own amusement as they cry in public for the world to see. Should have millions flocking to those Blogs in no time. Soap Opera fans have to do something in the evenings don't they?

Small wonder then, that Drudge made his "anything but blogger" comment?

Where is the blogospheric outrage at that comment? There was none of O'Reilly's ambiguity in it; to Drudge a blogger is the lowest. Was the outraged backlash stifled by a paralyzing fear of Drudge? Or is he respected to the point that whatever he says must be accepted?

Actually, Drudge's comments, like O'Reilly's, should provoke a thoughtful discusion of why? As with O'Reilly, offhand dismissal of critics is not a good practice for any business, organization, group, or individual.

The Wild Wild West Redux

So amongst all this aforementioned "negative" success, maybe some positive emphasis wouldn't hurt? I've made small positive contributions - from raising awareness of The Fallen Heroes Fund to the Senator Craig hostage fiasco to a minor part in the Boycott Hollywood story.

Bigger Blogs have done even bigger things; a couple thousand dollars raised for some GIs who lost everything in a tent fire, Troop Trax, Blog-a-thons... a great start.

Until a few months ago, I was like 279 million other Americans, ignorant of the word Blog. Once I started blogging the first feedback I got from non-blogging people who were familiar with the concept was generally negative. "Ohhh, one of those 'flame sites'?" Was a common question.

Two hundred people may read this post each of the first three days it is up. If for some reason one of the bigger Blogs in this world links it you can triple that. A link from a really big Blog (not likely- let's face it, this is not glowing with Blog love) means ten to twenty times that number. Five thousand in one day at the most.

In large American cities, infomercials and public access cable reach more people.

So yes, the top Bloggers are approaching the "power and influence" of a good editorial writer in a local paper in a mid-sized city. And Bloggers as a group should be certainly be noticed by anyone concerned with public opinion. And yes, growth can be expected. And yes, the Blogging segment of the American population will likely be comprised of a subset of the segment of the population called "voters", and thus have even more sway.

But we have a long way to go on the road to respectability.

Perhaps not the ten to twenty years it took talk radio to really explode; the world moves faster now, and the highway beckons.

It's the Wild Wild West. And likely to stay that way, for a little while at least. But the survivors, those who stick around, are in for something...

Probably a time when they'll miss the good ol' days of the Wild Wild West...

And now, to close with a happy thought.