Bob Stein, who saw many a scoundrel in his long distinguished career as a magazine editor, revels in the outing of Lou Dobbs:

Finally, finally the MSM, and the New York Times at that, has done for the CNN anchor what this blog has been apoplectically attempting to do for more than six months.

Starting with dismantling the leprosy hoax, David Leonhardt goes on to a litany of Dobbs’ offenses against journalistic truth that led to my naming him “the world’s worst journalist” earlier this month. Leonhardt’s conclusion:

“The most common complaint about him, at least from other journalists, is that his program combines factual reporting with editorializing. But I think this misses the point. Americans, as a rule, are smart enough to handle a program that mixes opinion and facts. The problem with Mr. Dobbs is that he mixes opinion and untruths. He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.”

Read the whole post and the whole article. A timely takedown.

We spend a lot of time decrying hack journalism, but let me highlight some of the good work being done. Here is Peter Canellos of the Globe truthsquadding the GOP Presidential candidates:

-- In defending the Iraq war, leading Republican presidential contenders are increasingly echoing words and phrases used by President Bush in the run-up to the war that reinforce the misleading impression that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

. . . Senator John McCain . . . suggested that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would "follow us home" from Iraq -- a comment some viewers may have taken to mean that bin Laden was in Iraq, which he is not.

Former New York mayor Rudolph Guiliani asserted, in response to a question about Iraq, that "these people want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. " However, none of the six people arrested for allegedly plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey were from Iraq.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney . . . said [terroristgroups] have "come together" to try to bring down the United States, though specialists say few of the groups Romney cited have worked together and only some have threatened the United States.

We have the early winner for the most ironic column of the year, the "estimable" David Brooks delivers:

. . . Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.

You remind us of this with every column Mr. Brooks. I have not read Gore's book, and Gore may indeed be a strange egg. But having read David Brooks for too many years, and having dedicated a good deal of time proving (yes, I proved it) that he is a mendacious, insecure, unethical, STRANGE man, it ill behooves him to call anyone else strange. We have many unkind words for Friedman, Broder, Klein and others. But nothing compares to the bizarre mind that David Brooks possesses. Married to his utter lack of fealty to the truth, to honest argument and to decency, it takes some nerve for Brooks to write what he does about Gore. But the success of David Brooks can only be attributed to gall, talent and intelligence surely can not explain it. They are nonexistent in him.

For T-Rex and all those suffering in Georgia. Let it Rain.

I have been a somewhat lonely defender of both Jane Harman and Joe Klein of late, finding that Rep. Harman has been quite good in her votes and statements since she engaged the blogs a year ago in the face of a strong primary challenge from the invaluable Marcy Winograd, and that Klein had improved greatly since he began blogging at Swampland.

Now, apparently, Harman had a conversation with Klein before the Iraq Supplemental vote and Harman indicated to Klein that she was going to vote for it. Apparently, Harman changed her mind as she voted against it. Klein wrote a blog post not knowing Harman changed her mind, and held her up as an example of what he preferred from Dems on the Iraq Supplemental, a vote for it, and criticized Sens. Clinton and Obama for voting against it. Obviously, I think Joe was wrong on the merits. But so what. Joe is wrong in a lot of opinions. That he got the facts wrong is the problem here. But he corrected it, though not in a timely nor gracious way. But the strangest thing is the upshot, where Rep. Harman apologizes for not telling Klein she changed her mind.

Happy 66th birthday to Bob Dylan today.

The times have changed, just not enough.

I'm still standing on the pavement, thinking about the Government .

If you want to chime in, here's the list.

The title is a joke. Based on his special comment tonight (C&L has the video):

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq. Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;

. . . You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

Fair enough but time to keep working. Voting no on the cavein bill is what good Democrats should do. Let the GOP and the Blue Dogs pass it. Then, announce a date certain for NOt funding the Iraq Debacle.

The trailer for "Sicko," Michael Moore's new film on our woefully inadequate health care system is out. You can watch it here.

The two hour season finale of "24" is tonight. I've mentioned before that I only began watching this season, but I got hooked pretty quickly. Media reports are that viewership is down, perhaps because it's been more relationship oriented and less action packed this season. There are also rumors that next season, the show won't feature CTU as it has in the past.

There's also been a lot of attention to the show's right wing creator and executive producer, Joel Surnow.

There's still plenty of violence, some torture, mostly under the ticking time bomb theory, and the villians are Muslim, Russian or Chinese.

I finished watching season five a few weeks ago, and now have season four on my iPod to watch while on the treadmill at the gym, it's perfect for keeping the heart rate up and making 45 minutes go by really quickly.

So, who's watching the finale? Has the show reached a dead end? Is it a wing show that endorses torture or just entertainment?

Update: If you missed it, here's a recap.

In urging the Congress to renew a voucher program for DC, Fred Hiatt writes:

If it were up to the children and their parents, there'd be no question that the District's five-year experiment with school vouchers would be renewed for an additional five years or more.

But when it comes to the Iraq Debacle, Fred Hiatt urges the Bush Administration to ignore the wishes of the American People:

It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. . . . Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

The overwhelming wishes of the American People do not matter to Fred Hiatt when it comes to Iraq. Hypocrite.

Time critic Richard Schickel wrote:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.

Does this requirement apply to Critcis writing about other subjects, like say, blogging? For Schickel clealry knows nothing about blogging. He writes:

D.J. Waldie, among the finest of our part-time scriveners, in effect said "fine." But remember, he added, blogging is a form of speech, not of writing. I thought it was a wonderful point. The act of writing for print, with its implication of permanence, concentrates the mind most wonderfully. It imposes on writer and reader a sense of responsibility that mere yammering does not. It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.

I take it Mr. Schickel has never heard of teh Google? The idea that dead tree versions imply permanence whereas online versions, which truly are accesible for years on end, are not, tells you that Mr. Schickel is lacking in the credentials, knowledge and seriousness about blogging to be a reviewer or critic of it.

Episode 84 is tonight: "The Second Coming."

This week, Phil turns down Tony's offer of compromise and A.J. despairs about the world and his future. Meanwhile, Tony takes offense over an affront to Meadow.

I thought last week was the best episode of the season, and a total surprise. It's winding down rapidly.