Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Decline And Fall

by dday

This week we have seen perhaps a tipping point in the decline of American newspapers. Hearst announced they may sell or close the San Francisco Chronicle, a month after they said the same about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The two newspapers in Philadelphia, the Inquirer and the Daily News, filed for bankruptcy, as did the Journal Register Company, which owns 20 papers in the Northeast. And the Rocky Mountain News in Denver ran its last edition yesterday.

As much as we don’t want to admit it, some of this is inevitable. The medium of delivered print newspapers in an environment where anyone can hop online and read virtually any article around the nation or the world is going to be threatened. That advertising revenue is falling because of the economic meltdown is just accelerating this decline. While newspaper websites generally do quite well, they haven’t been able to monetize the content to a degree that’s economically feasible. And the overall threat here is the death of news reporting, not the physical newspapers themselves. At least that’s the view of Gary Kamiya.

If newspapers die, so does reporting. That’s because the majority of reporting originates at newspapers. Online journalism is essentially parasitic. Like most TV news, it derives or follows up on stories that first appeared in print. Former Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll has estimated that 80 percent of all online news originates in print. As a longtime editor of an online journal who has taken part in hundreds of editorial meetings in which story ideas are generated from pieces that appeared in print, that figure strikes me as low.

There’s no reason to believe this is going to change. Currently there is no business model that makes online reporting financially viable. From a business perspective, reporting is a loser. There are good financial reasons why the biggest content-driven Web business success story of the last few years, the Huffington Post, does very little original reporting. Reported pieces take a lot of time, cost a lot of money, require specialized skills and don’t usually generate as much traffic as an Op-Ed screed, preferably by a celebrity. It takes a facile writer an hour to write an 800-word rant. Very seldom can the best daily reporters and editors produce copy that fast.

But the story is more complicated than that. At the same time that newspapers are dying, blogging and “unofficial” types of journalism continue to expand, grow more sophisticated and take over some (but not all) of the reportorial functions once performed by newspapers. New technologies provide an infinitely more robust feed of raw data to the public, along with the accompanying range of filtering, interpreting and commenting mechanisms that the Internet excels in generating.

As these developments expand, our knowledge of the world will become much less broad. Document-based reporting and academic-style research will increasingly replace face-to-face reporting. And the ideal of journalistic objectivity and fairness will increasingly crumble, to be replaced by more tendentious and opinionated reports.

Paul Starr makes a similar argument in The New Republic, saying that the loss of newspapers will most impact local news coverage and lead to a rise in local corruption.

Now, I agree with this to an extent. The breadth of material presented in a newspaper is not entirely likely to be replicated online, at least not at any one place. More things would happen in the shadows in a post-newspaper world. And I hope for that not to happen. At the same time, there’s a lot of redundancy in newspapers. Dozens if not hundreds of different writers across the country cover the exact same Obama address to Congress that I watched with my eyes as well, and can just as easily form an opinion on. There is an argument that local papers should focus on local reporting, and get their national news from national sources, which would probably still offer enough of a variety.

This breaks down when the papers that are able to weather the decline, the ones with the highest reputation and the broadest base of reporters, who could funnel news across the country and present themselves as an established brand, soil themselves with demonstrably mendacious columnists that call into question the editorial aptitude of the whole project.

Clearly, the main cause of the crisis is structural/technological shifts in the media and economic landscape. But a small number of news organizations are actually well-positioned, in principle, to benefit over the long run from these changes. Papers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post have strong brands and the possibility of becoming national news organizations that partially fill the space left empty by the receding metro dailies in Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco and elsewhere. But The Washington Post, by standing behind the claim that up is down if George Will says that is is, is pissing that brand away. Rather than complaining to me, people who work at, or care about, The Washington Post need to complain to Fred Hiatt and ensure that something gets done.

Meanwhile, one of the Post’s main competitors in the world of papers with potential to attract a national audience is The New York Times. So faced with a humiliating abrogation of basic responsibilities by its competitor, does the Times take the opportunity to pour some salt in the wounds? No! Instead, out comes Andrew Revkin with a false equivalence article painting Will with the same brush as Al Gore. Will’s sin is to say that the world is not getting warmer when, in fact, it is. Gore’s sin was to say that warming is happening (it is) and to illustrate the problems with this trend by referring to a chart that Revkin deems unduly alarmist but that Gore found in The New York Times. Hm.

And since this was written, George Will responded to that falsely equivalent NYT article with a pissy rant standing by the substance of his global warming denialist column of the week prior. In doing so he defends the substance of a data point he included about sea ice levels in Antarctica, despite the climate research center where Will got the data has publicly disavowed it. And then, Will’s editor Fred Hiatt defends his writer in some of the weirdest ways possible.

Hiatt insists Will’s entitled to his opinion about the global warming facts because those facts are just too complicated–too unknowable–and who the hell are readers to claim otherwise? Hiatt told CJR:

“If you want to start telling me that columnists can’t make inferences which you disagree with—and, you know, they want to run a campaign online to pressure newspapers into suppressing minority views on this subject—I think that’s really inappropriate. It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject — so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don’t make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn’t be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him.”

That sound you hear is Hiatt digging the Post an even deeper and more embarrassing hole.

I have two favorite parts. The first was Hiatt’s insistence that Will has every right to draw inference–to make claims of fact in his column–based on data that most scientists reject. Good Lord, what is Will not allowed to do in a Post column? And does the Op-Ed page maintain any guidelines?

And second, I chuckled when Hiatt insisted that if people disagree with Will’s published falsehoods, they shouldn’t try to pressure the paper to publish corrections, they should, y’know, “debate him.” Right, because Will and Post editors have been so open and willing to address–to debate–the controversy.

Now, to his credit, the Post’s ombusdman will write tomorrow that Will was wrong on the science, and that the paper should have addressed this more quickly. But clearly there is a problem with accountability at the Post when it comes to their star columnists.

(By the way, good for John Kerry for trying to get some measure of accountability by himself.)

But this is a serious concern. With the viability of the newspaper model looking less clear, we will necessarily shrink the amount of reporters covering both local and national issues. Online sources cannot fill the gap without substantial resources (endowments, anyone?). Therefore we vest more power in the fourth estate in the hands of a number of established brands. And yet those brands are gradually proving themselves unworthy of the power. It shouldn’t look unfavorably on the entire profession, and the many fine reporters working under these brands, but it inevitably does.

It would be nice to say that, after being trashed and abused by major media for so long, that we don’t need journalism. But we clearly do. And when they damage their reputations, it actually affects all of us.

.

What A Party

by digby

Courtesy of Dave Weigel, here’s the scene from today’s wingnut populist uprising in DC:

They really don’t know, do they?*

*That’s Neal Pollack — the greatest pioneer, snark blogger of them all.

.

Haloscan

by digby

I don’t know what’s happened, but it’s happening to Atrios too, so it must be a system problem. You can always yell at the TV instead.

.

Oopsie

by digby

Let’s hear some more bellyaching from Republicans about volcano monitoring. And then we’ll talk about this:

President Barack Obama’s former nominee to become commerce secretary, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, steered taxpayer money to his home state’s redevelopment of a former Air Force base even as he and his brother engaged in real estate deals there, an Associated Press investigation found.

Gregg, R-N.H., has personally invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Cyrus Gregg’s office projects at the Pease International Tradeport, a Portsmouth business park built at the defunct Pease Air Force Base, once home to nuclear bombers. Judd Gregg has collected at least $240,017 to $651,801 from his investments there, Senate records show, while helping to arrange at least $66 million in federal aid for the former base.

Gregg said he violated no laws or Senate rules. In a statement Friday, he said that all the federal money he steered to Pease had been requested by the National Guard, the city of Portsmouth or its mayor or other public officials “and did not involve my initiative but only my support of the requests.”

But the senator’s mixture of personal and professional business would have been difficult to square with President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to impose greater transparency and integrity over federal budget earmarks — funding for lawmakers’ pet projects. Gregg said that during his consideration for the Cabinet job, the White House did not know about his Pease earmarks, although the administration knew about his investments at Pease.

One hates to be cynical at times like these. But the article does mention that they were investigating this before Gregg withdrew. We can draw our own conclusions, but if Gregg did withdraw because he was about to be outed as a typical corrupt Republican swindler, it was just awfully good of him to do it by kicking Obama for being “irresponsible” just as he was negotiating the stimulus package with Presidents Nelson and Collins.

Why, I just heard Gregg going on and on about fiscal responsibility again yesterday:

In a written statement, he said “it raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending, and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit and long-term fiscal crisis posed by the huge entitlement programs.”

Gregg also challenged Obama’s stated desire to reign in government spending, asking in his statement “Where is the spending restraint? Instead, government spending continues to grow and expand.”

And apparently it isn’t expanding in a way that benefits Gregg and his family, which is where the fiscal responsibility rubber meets the earmark road.

This is what I love. You have these vastly wealthy fiscal responsibility wankers running around telling old ladies they are going to have to eat cat food for the good of their country while they are all larding themselves up with as much government pigfat as they can get. And if they can’t it directly from the treasury, they grease the palms of politicians to deregulate so they can screw their investors — and then get it from the treasury when their scams fall apart.

Obama dodged a bullet with Gregg, but he really didn’t deserve to. It was a tremendously naive idea to put that guy in the cabinet during an economic crisis and it was always going to cause him trouble. The fact that he was a crook should not have been a surprise — he’s a fiscal responsibility scold and they are automatically suspect.

This really looks bad for Gregg. If you read the whole article you see that his only defense is that even though he and his family benefited greatly from these earmarks, that wasn’t why he put them in the legislation. And that will probably be good enough for the Village. As St John McCain has proved for 30 years, if you rail against financial irresponsibility and government waste and tell everyone who will listen how honest you are, you can get away with anything.

Honest Judd Gregg wouldn’t knowingly do anything illegal any more than those fine corporate lawyers who ok’d their companies spying on Americans without warrants or those fine upstanding men and women in the Bush administration who ordered torture. These are good people, you see, acting in good faith. It’s the old ladies on cat food diets and the first time homeowners who got in over their heads and the overpaid autoworkers who must pay or our society will find ourselves overwhelmed by moral hazard. And then where would we be?

.

More Revolt Of The Generals

by dday

The most significant part of President Obama’s Iraq speech was that this was the first time, I guess, that he has specifically agreed to abide by the bilateral status of forces agreement.

But full withdrawal will follow within 18 months of the combat-brigades’ departure. For the first time as president, Obama attempted to resolve ambiguities about a full withdrawal along the Dec. 2011 framework that the Iraqi government insisted upon in last year’s Status of Forces Agreement, committing himself to its mechanisms. Some on the left have wondered warily why Obama hadn’t made such a public commitment. Those worries will probably end with this line:

“Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

As Chris Bowers notes, breaking this agreement would mean extending the occupation into 2012, in an election year, at which point the antiwar movement would have good reason to howl in protest. The Iraqis secured a hard withdrawal date, the timing of which compels the President to stick with it.

However, NBC’s Jim Miklaszeswki reported before the Obama speech that the Pentagon would prefer to break this agreement and continue the occupation (h/t).

Miklaszeswki: Secretary Gates, as early as 18 months to 2 years ago, was saying “look, everyone understands that we’re going to have to start withdrawing from Iraq.” But at the same time, Gates adds this caveat that he believes significant numbers of troops will remain in Iraq for years to come.

And in fact military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all US forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated.

And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years, David.

Gregory: 15 to 20 years, I think that takes a moment to really sink in. With a mission that is primarily what over that kind of time horizon, Mik?

Miklaszeswki: Again it would evolve from a day-to-day combat mission, to more of an oversight mission. We mustn’t forget the US is providing nearly 100% of all combat air support over Iraq, and the Iraqi military is not going to be ready to assume that mission within the next 18 months to 2 years, it’s going to be impossible.

And there are some discussions, I know Richard Engel mentioned the area of Kirkuk up in the north recently, there are some discussions among Iraqis and I know some military commanders to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, US air base, in Kirkuk.

The military commanders already mau-mau’ed their way into a three-month extension of the withdrawal of combat troops. Adding 15-20 years of troop deployments to Iraq would mean that babies born during the war would be spending tours of duty there. If they continue in violation of the bilateral agreement, they will be nothing but targets.

It seems to me that the commanders pushing this may not have much of a problem with the President taking political heat in 2012 for the decision. The officer class doesn’t cotton to taking orders from Democrats, anyway. Watch for this continued undermining him over the next couple years.

.

Hurtling Headlong Into the Past

by digby

I’m enjoying all the dispatches from CPAC this year, as always. (They are such sad, wacky, mixed up kidz.) But I am particularly enjoying all the hand wringing about how the Republicans should deal with their minority status.

Perhaps they should listen to one of their own wise spiritual and intellectual leaders on the subject just a few short years ago. I’m sure they’ll feel better:

“Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with [the majority.] Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.” (Grover Norquist, Washington Post, 11/4/2004)

And here’s some really good news. Newtie’s got his groove back:

We already have more than enough evidence of what this administration thinks of the American people. For instance, Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech in which he describes a nation of cowards!

[boooo]

Let me say to Attorney General Holder, I welcome an opportunity to have a dialog with you about cowardice. Anywhere, anytime….!

Yeaaaaah! (No word on whether or not he’s willing to have a dialog on race, which is what Holder was talking about. But whatever.)

He’s got his old nasty, mendacious, evil leprechaun mojo back and I couldn’t be happier. If there’s one thing the country is sorely missing is a creepy, neurotic, pseudo-intellectual conservative firebrand like Gingrich out there throwing down the gauntlet. Nobody does it better.

Update: Why do I bother?

Here’s the great Charles Pierce:

No. You’re idiots and your mothers are embarrassed by every single one of you. It’s almost rush hour. Go panhandle outside the Heritage Foundation now. And Accuracy in Media remains one of the most blissfully ironic names in the political lexicon. Once, when writing about John McCain for Esquire, just at the very beginning of the Full Monica, I went to CPAC. (In those days, it should be noted, McCain didn’t have three votes in the hall.) What you had there then was what you have there now–the distilled essence of what Krugman was talking about when he mentioned Beavis and Butthead in relationship to the conservative movement the other night. It was at high tide back in ’98. They were smug in the knowledge that their political ascendancy was everlasting, because all their congressional idols, superstar columnists, and important radio hosts told them so. Now, the bag of tricks is empty, the country hates them and what few ideas they have, when it thinks of them at all, which is not often, and the “movement” is a slab of rotting meat by the side of the road that even the vultures won’t touch, blackening in the sun and drawing flies. Look at this decaying lump of abject fail. Kids, in every place save his own mind, Newt Gingrich ended up a profound political failure. Rick Santorum lost. Badly. Global-warming denial? At least invite some UFOlogists to really liven things up. Election fraud? From the party of Katherine Harris? Citizen-led reform? In a country that has demonstrated its revulsion toward all you stand for in two consecutive elections, and that’s now lining up at almost 60 percent behind a huge big-gubmint stimulus plan that makes Arthur Laffer cry like a child every night? And The Fairness Doctrine–boogedy-boogedy–is not coming back. Squint Scarborough is a no-hoper but, Jesus Christ with a hockey stick, is there anything Tucker Carlson won’t do for a buck? You want to rebuild your “Movement,” such as it was? Then get it out of the f**king Phantom Zone. Come to the sad conclusion that it’s not 1998 any more, that the country’s in actual trouble, and nobody of any substance takes you and your “issues” seriously. You want to rebuild the Republican party? Lose the phone numbers of every one of these clowns. These are people who never learned that a sneer is not logic and that a string of adjectives is not an argument. All that matters is Pissing Off The Liberals. Do that, and they’ll adore you. That’s how a public Froot Loop like Michelle Bachmann gets a featured speaking role, and that’s why any sensible Republicans would look at this gathering and feel the cold, dead hands of Zachary Taylor and the rest of the Whigs settling ominously on their shoulders. FWIW, Sarah Palin declined to attend. Maybe she is the future, after all.

.

Simple Answers To Simple Questions

by tristero

CPAC follies:

In his CPAC speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted that conservatives are more “interesting” and “fun” than liberals. Here’s his proof: “who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich when you can be with Rush Limbaugh?”

Me.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

with apologies to Atrios.

Never Underestimate…

by dday

The Capitol has a power plant that heats and cools all federal buildings in Washington. And it is a carbon-spewing, dirty-energy, coal-fired power plant. On Monday, there will be a mass civil disobedience action in Washington, with over 2,500 protesters descending on the Capitol Power Plant for a nonviolent sit-in. Prior to that, the top two Congressional leaders called for a 100% shift to natural gas at the power plant by the end of the year.

Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid released a letter asking the Capitol Architect to switch the Capitol Power Plant from coal to 100 percent natural gas by the end of 2009. Pelosi and Reid’s call comes just three days before more than 2,500 people from across the country are coming to converge at the power plant for the biggest civil disobedience on climate issues in U.S. history. Prior to the announcement of the Capitol Climate Action, pro-coal legislators had been able to prevent the switch from coal to natural gas.

“Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid’s dramatic action shows that Congress can act quickly on global warming when the public demands it,” said Greenpeace Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett. “This move demonstrates that they recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for a switch to cleaner energy sources.”

In other words, Congressional leaders were pushed by a grassroots action to call for sweeping change. It should be a shift fully to renewables, but hey, they’re politicians, they’re going to need prodding. But this is a fairly bold step.

Coal makes people sick and this country can’t afford more coal burned into the atmosphere, from an environmental and a public health standpoint. Oscar-winning directors Joel and Ethan Coen have released a new satirical video aimed at the coal industry’s deceptions on “clean coal.”

Pass it around and maybe before long, your local or federal representatives will start calling on switching power plants near you away from coal. Industry and their PR spinners will never stop trying to keep the old, dirty energy structures in place. We can’t stop either.

.

Serious Putz

by digby

From today’s “why are we listening to you?” file:

Mitchell: Do you agree overall, that we can build up in Afghanisatan and pull down at the rate, the pace[in Iraq] that President Obama is now anticipating?

Michael O’Hanlon: Yeah I think so. Let’s also realize that we don’t have much of a choice. The Iraqis want us to leave. The Iraqis are in a very middle ground. They want us to keep working with them at the appropriate level, but they want to increasingly run their own affairs and they would prefer to do everything on their own, naturally. They’re a proud people and so we’re going to have to keep downsizing. That’s really not at issue. The only question would be how fast. The thing I like most about President Obama’s plan — really there are really two aspects. One, that we can be fairly gradual this year, a year that’s really crucial in Iraq, where there are still some key fragilities in the situation. And then second, even after the quote unquote draw down is complete, we will still have about 50,000 US troops, including five or six new types of brigades that are described as advisory brigades but which also have a lot of combat capabilities, just in case.

So it’s a prudent, hedging plan that allows for flexibility in the future. I think that’s the right way to think about future Iraq strategy.

Mitchell: To build up if they need to, or rebuild back if they need to.

O’Hanlon: Or slow down the draw down if necessary.

Mitchell: Exactly. Let me ask you about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s decision to go ahead and investigate CIA alleged abuses, interrogation techniques and wiretapping, even though according to a CBS New york Times poll most people don’t think — 58% — don’t think that that’s necessary, yet the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to proceed. 37% want the hearings, 58% don’t want the hearings. CIA obviously doesn’t want the hearings. The administration, President Obama has signaled that it’s time to move on. Do you think these hearings are a good idea?

O’Hanlon: That’s a tough question. I think hearings on this kind of a topic can be useful if they help firm up and document a consensus that’s begun to emerge. And that’s what I would hope out of this. because I don’t think we should re-litigate this problem or essentially punish companies that were following what they thought was the letter of the law at the time. So I take the same position that Obama and Bush and others have.

But, nonetheless, congress has an oversight role. It takes that job seriously. And it needs, perhaps to go through some of these questions one more time and to write a report that future generations can consult. So if it serves that purpose then I think there may be a benefit.

Big of him.

First, this morning all the gasbags are talking about how Obama may not be leaving enough troops in Iraq because there’s a good chance he’ll need to build back up. One gets the feeling that this is a piece of village conventional wisdom — that the draw down is a nice idea but that we’ll be building back troop levels at some point because we’ll “have” to, the reasons for which aren’t specified and which hasn’t been debated as far as I know.

And why anyone is asking Michael O’Hanlon for his insights into Iraq policy is beyond me. I know he is very, very serious and all, but really, he only muddles the issue. One is tempted to dismiss any idea he has out of hand because he has no credibility.

And as for his opinion on the congressional investigation, well let’s just say that if you could hear the condescending sneer in his voice as he opined that congress does have a role to play (not a great as his own of course, because he is very, very serious) you would want to throw your shoe at the television. He is a perfect little villager, expressing contempt for the idea that people of good stock (like high paid corporate lawyers and government officials) could have possibly known that they were breaking the law. And dear me, even if they did it was for our own good.

I find it quite telling that O’Hanlon sees prohibitions against torture and spying on Americans without a warrant as a “consensus that’s begun to emerge.” I suspect that would come as a surprise to the people who wrote the constitution, but hey, baby steps.

O’Hanlon thinks it’s probably fine if the little people (who take their jobs seriously, don’t you know) want to write a cute little report for future generations to peer at curiously, but one certainly needn’t go any further than that. And I can understand why he would believe this. If you start going down the path of holding people responsible for the things they said and did — or, worse, what they got wrong — why, that could spell a lot of trouble for serious people like him. Best not go there.

.

They No Likee

by digby

For some reason “conservatives” don’t like the budget and it’s very hard to understand. They say they are very concerned about costs, but back when trillions were being spent on a useless war in Iraq year after year( millions of it “lost” just sitting around by the pallet load in the Emerald City) they didn’t blink an eye. So it’s pretty clear they don’t mind deficit spending, its just deficit spending that actually benefits Americans they object to. Good to know.

Wizbang: Change we can deceive
Michelle Malkin: Spendzilla! Fun facts about Obama’s budget-busting budget
Power Line: Soak the Rich!
Power Line: Obama’s Budget: The Beginning of the End?
RedState: What Will Obama’s Budget Cost You? $25,573.48…EACH!
Hot Air: The Obama plan: massive tax hikes
Hugh Hewitt: Soaking The Rich Means Crippling Churches, Charities, and Home Values
Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s Budget: What the [String of Expletives Deleted]ing [Still More Deleted]
National Review Online – The Corner: I Don’t Want To Pay For It
National Review Online – The Corner: Over $1 Trillion in Tax Increases

Very,very shrill.

Speaking of which, Paul Krugman (who likees the budget very much) wrote the other day that the Republicans had become the party of Beavis and Butthead, reduced to pulling out funny-sounding budget items to mock. I agree, naturally, but I think the press has an awful lot to do with it as well. They looove that stuff.

And yesterday, a funny thing happened. Here’s Jack Cafferty, obviously thinking he was going to get a bunch of outraged responses to the “crazy” spending in the budget:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: The House of Representatives passed a $410 billion spending bill. It is loaded with pork, courtesy of both parties.

“The New York Times” reports one watchdog group says the bill includes $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects. Among them are these: $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Texas; $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine — this is my favorite — $1.8 million to research swine odor and manure management in Iowa. They could do the same research in Washington, D.C.

Smaller-ticket items include asparagus research in Washington State; wool research in Montana, Texas and Wyoming; rodent control in Hawaii; and on and on and on.

Democrats earmarked about $40 million for the presidential libraries of FDR, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. The bill even include earmarks requested by some lawmakers who are no longer members of Congress.

Republicans pounced on the bill as wasteful, pointing out it comes just after the White House held that summit on fiscal responsibility. Democrats point out 40 percent of all the earmarks are things that were requested by Republicans.

Democratic Congressmen David Obey of Wisconsin defended these earmarks, saying that they were fully disclosed and a small part of the overall bill. And he added that without them, “… the White House and its anonymous bureaucrats would control all spending.” House and Senate Democrats have already agreed on this bill, although Republican senators could try to cut out some of the pork when it gets debated in the Senate.

As for the White House, one official says, “It’s a big document and we’re still reviewing it.”

Here’s the question: Are earmarks a necessary evil or just plain evil?

This is what he reported later in the show:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, the question this hour is, are earmarks a necessary evil or are they just plain evil?

S. in Michigan: “It depends on what ends up being called an earmark and who labels it as such. For the state or city getting the money, it is progress money or an investment. For others, it becomes pork, or an earmark, et cetera. For example, for Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, monitoring volcanoes is an earmark, but, for Alaskans, monitoring hurricanes may be earmarks. So, should we stop doing both?”

Kevin writes: “Earmarks can be wasteful or incredibly valuable, just like any type of spending. Let’s look at one of your examples: $1.7 million for honeybee research. This seems silly at first glance. But when you recall that there appears to be something wiping out the honeybee population, and that these bees are necessary for crops, like apples, peaches, soybeans, pears, pumpkins, cucumbers, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, and strawberries, then it quickly starts looking like maybe we ought to be spending more money on this research.”

Susan in Idaho: “If earmarks are necessary, we better change the way we do business in all levels of politics. The time for responsible spending is way past due. Pet projects are taking food away from the hungry and jobs away from those who, by no fault of their own, have lost them.”

Ed in Iowa writes: “Here in Iowa, we’re sure in need of some swine odor and manure management. And I can tell you that for darn sure, since I live downwind to several hog farms. What you don’t understand when you make fun of this is that it’s a huge problem. Pigs are big business here. Their manure could be used for fertilizer and biofuels, instead of just polluting the air and the water. It is a smart investment that will pay off in clean air, clean water, cheap food, and jobs.”

And B.D. in Boise, Idaho: “The 40 percent that the Republicans want are pure evil. The 60 percent that the Democrats want are absolutely necessary. Or is it the other way around? We’re handing out so much money these days, it is easy to forget which side of the aisle you’re really on.”

If you didn’t see your e-mail here, you can go to my blog, CNN.com/caffertyfile, and look for yours there, among hundreds of others — Wolf.

Obviously, the answers were chosen by Cafferty, so it doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps he got schooled a little bit by his viewers or maybe this is what he meant to do all along, but his second segment indicated that there is, at least, some indication that the wingnut Beavis and Buttheads aren’t quite as entertaining as they used to be.

Perhaps an awareness is growing about the value of government, or maybe just a willingness to speak out about it. Either way it would truly be a sea change after 30 years of snotty Reaganite dismissiveness. That’s big.

.