Perhaps one of the more difficult problems in maintaining a blog such as this is lack of motivation. No one knows who I am or where this blog is and no one comments. It can be disconcerting and disheartening at times. Also, while many important topics exist in the world, I remain too under-educated about most of them and feel uncomfortable making a judgment about something I don't know.

However, there are two recent events that I feel pretty confident discussing.

First, was the Daily Show the only news source to mention the lack of solidarity among the republicans in the senate committee overseeing John Bolton's UN placement? Admittedly, a few days later there was coverage concerning the fact that he might not get in, but there was very little discussion why. I would have thought it an important note of the day....

PARTY LINES CROSSED!
PARTY DIVISIVENESS DECREASES AS REPUBLICAN RELUCTANTLY ADMITS NOMINATION MIGHT BE INSANE!!!

I'm willing to concede that my headline might be marginally slanted to the left, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that putting a man in the UN who hates the UN might not be the most brilliant idea. Forgive me for still thinking I might be fairly moderate on the issue when I say that such an action feels like one of a long string of surprisingly extremist moves. The concepts of extremism and moderation are, of course, subjective ones, but I really think I might be in the majority in this case.

Back to point. As has been pointed out before, the nation is currently very divided. As far as I am concerned, the reason for this is quite simple. The party of the president usually follows the lead of the president. President Bush didn't win the popular vote the first time around and only won it by a slim majority in the second go. Previous presidents in this situation tended to realize their predicament and attempted to moderate their more extreme opinions and political moves.

President Bush has not done that. Instead, extreme ideals are some of his more heavily promoted. The Republican congress doesn't mind this, because they like those ideals and it isn't as if their heads will role if things don't come out right, so they follow along, and they follow along with great solidarity. Meanwhile, minority Democrats recognize that a slightly conservative movement is going on, but refuse to accept the extreme conservativism proposed by the President, believing the general public does not fully support such action. Of course, they could be wrong, but in many cases I doubt it. Opinion polls over the past 5 years support this suggestion, save on the issue of war. However, even there, opinion polls are beginning to shift away from the President.

A shame that didn't happen 7 months ago.

However, much of that seems to be changing, now. Two factors appear to be pushing a major, if silent, swing in the Republican party. Bush's popularity numbers continue to drop. And Tom Delay, the man who, many believe, was the true engineer of the recent republican solidarity, is slowly falling out of power like a boulder rolling slowly off a cliff.

One of the first true signs of this action happened Wednesday or Thursday, the day What's His Face, R-Ohio, said that he did not feel comfortable giving his vote to suggest Bolton be confirmed by the Senate. A subtle but important chink in the armor of republican solidarity had been exposed. Perhaps it means nothing, and perhaps it is very important. If so, one of two things will likely happen.

The republican congress will maintain power, in which case they will find themselves becoming much more moderate, following the lead of McCain et al. Or the republicans will lose power. In that case, I really don't know what will happen.

Either way, I expect it will be very interesting.

TOMORROW (or whenever): a diatribe on how pissed off people who hate fat people must be about this latest report by the CDC.

I went to Los Angeles this weekend and was struck by what appears to be an essential difference between LA and many other cities. Black people are often wealthy in LA. It was an idea that struck me early and often. I'd seen well off black families before. I've seen many african american middle class households residing in those standard suburbs of west wichita. But in my head the role of over-dressed, slightly pompous looking rich person had been reserved for fat, white men and over-tanned women.

This weekend, it was as if a bulb went off in my head. A stereotype that I'd longed to see altered in my head was finally shifting. I've decided to like Los Angeles for any number of reasons. I reminds me of a smoggier, busier, palm tree-filled Wichita. It is busy and exciting and there's always a chance that you'll accidentally walk into a famous Jewish person's bar mitzfah (long story). Everyone is pleasant (when they aren't attempting to kill you on the 101). The ocean is right there. Every conceivable store is near and attractively built. Most importantly, though, is the city's diversity. In many places you'll hear at least one or two more languages. Black people, white people, and latino people are all working together. In the same strip mall you might see signs for russian food, greek food, asian food, and hamburgers.

What a place.

Yeah! I got a response! Admittedly, it's just Joel, but it's something!!! As such, I feel I've started a discourse. Let's get to it.

"I feel the same has happened with the president. There's no trust between the office and the press any longer, thus the doors are closed and its nearly impossible to report stuff.

And about your "golden days" of journalism, how golden were they? So great that the press never revealed the extent to which FDR was crippled? So honest that they consistantly looked the other way as women slipped out of the Kennedy White House?

And I don't think any secret government agents have tried to shutdown your blog that's been updated twice in the last 6 months."

Yes. I think those years were and are still golden. And it's because I think back then those kinds of reports were considered bullcrap. Did women having sex with Kennedy make him a bad president? Would we have made it to the moon without the guy? Maybe. Who can say? But it may well have taken far longer. If Kennedy had sex with fewer women, would it have taken us less time to make it too the moon?

Would there be any chance of FDR being elected today? No. FDR would NEVER have been elected in this America. Because you'd have 3000 "watchdogs" paying zero attention to his ideas and record and paying complete attention to his ability to walk.

It's banality today. Its noise and wind blowing from your television set. I concede that Tim Russert was a poor pick to exemplify, but I believe the notion remains sound. News today happens in the newsroom. It does not happen in the real world, unless some producer thinks there might be a jump in ratings if they got a camera shot of situation X or scene Y.

Strangely, I actually think the only place where good, solid news remains is in the world of sports. And the only reason I say that is because people actually ARE so interested in sport outcomes that there is no need for a side-story about Derrick Thomas having sex with 30 women in one night. The only time those kind of stories appear, at least in my limited experience, seem to be when the rest of the press gets a hold of them. Otherwise, personal stories always revolve around the individual and the sport itself.

Now, I'm not saying that sporting news is better or more moral that other kinds. I'm just saying that both the press and the audience are much more clear on what should and should not be covered, and it seems to match the reality of what should and should not be covered.

Returning to the actual quote I singled out: there's no trust between the press and the presidency. I agree, and I think two things have caused this. First, the press spent eight years of the clinton white house reporting about true and untrue sex affairs. Certainly, they spent a healthy share covering important matters, but you always knew that news of some sexual tryst was not far from the lips of any major reporter (save, perhaps, the ones stationed in Africa, or Ireland, or Bosnia, or some other out of the way place where people kept dying and crap). In other words, I think the press spends too much time talking about the president as a person, and not enough time talking about him as a president.

Second, so far (and I only have second hand reports on this), a great deal of distance appears to be coming from this particular white house. Have you not heard the reports that this white house seems to be more secretive than any presidency in the last hundred years? Along with a "culture of life" comes, it seems, a "culture of suspicion."

I love the Daily Show.

Anyway, before deriding an entire idea because of weak examples, consider the whole idea. On the other hand, this is the internet, where whole ideas tend to be ignored and everyone exists in a land of minutia, so go ahead and keep arguing the crap. It works for the major news outlets.