toolsandtoolsandtools

It's a recurrent theme here, but the confluence of the Imus fuss, the n+1 v litblog war, and a sports-talk radio clown v sports-blogs brings it together again:

Those in control of open markets only support open markets as long as they control them. Success and profit belong only to those credentialed by the credentialed.

Having a voice and the means the interject it into discourse does not mean that voice is worth hearing. I couldn't agree more, but that sentence implies the right to speak, the right to be heard, the right to be ignored. If the established dispensers of conventional wisdom resent some dweebs with laptops challenging their market dominance, what those aristocrats need to ask themselves is why are these uncredentialed yobs stealing market share?

The great American myth is the upstart entrepreneur rising from dirt poor to corporate king, but the secret of American wealth is it's a closed club. When the media whores who appear on Imus whine about incivility in Blogsylvania, when the editors of a obscure literary magazine slog litbloggers, when radio hosts ask listeners to crash a blog's server, they're protecting their power and their exclusive privilege to award power to those of their choosing. Nothing less.

This is the jangle just subliminal in American social discourse and politics today, jangling along the spine, humming behind the eyes. The ratios of power are being renegotiated. The yobs think they have a voice and the right to use it. How - and if - the credentialed can protect the credential is the vacuum vibrating just beneath the skin.

*

Speaking of tools whose powerboat's been beached, David Broder

in today's WaPo:

From the start, Democrats ought to concede one big point: Absent any readiness on their part to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq, those forces will be there as long as George Bush wants them to remain. Once that point is conceded, Bush should be called upon to pay some attention to the Democrats' demands -- and the public opinion that supports them.

At a minimum, he should say he is willing to enforce on our Iraqi allies the requirements everyone knows are necessary steps for a political settlement of the internal conflict: the agreement on distribution of oil revenue, the promised amendments to the constitution, the creation of local and regional governments. Bush should indicate publicly -- for the sake of American public opinion and as a clear signal to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- that without those pledges being met, he cannot justify the sacrifices American troops are making.

Yeah, that'll happen, because six years of documented evidence demonstrates conclusively that this president will graciously compromise on this - on any - issue.

Conventional wisdom is worthless, and will be defended by its oracles unto dirt.

*

HAH! UPDATE! HAH!

I chose Broder, but read this ick from Cohen and then go see Atrios and vote for your wanker of the day.

(Sadly, completing the trifecta, even Dionne is wankerific today: The McCain Tragedy? Aargh.)

*

UPDATE 2:00 PM

Bush invites Democrats to White House to kiss his fat white regal ass, or else.

I wait for Broder to tell me how this is another sign of Democratic intransigence. Waiting in the sense of crouching over the crapper waiting for imminent proof of food poisoning.