For several years now, Jon Steward and Steven Colbert have not only been hailed as the nation's leading purveyors of news and information for millions of viewers, the fact that they are has been both goggled at and decried. Comedians? Satirists? These are the sources of news for millions of Americans? What the hell is wrong?

Well — nothing. Comedy and satire have long been vital parts of the political discourse, all the way back to the Greeks and probably earlier (go ask a scholar who would know). Aristophenes' "Lysistrata" is a great example, a satire of men's lust for war being thwarted by their disgusted wives who withheld relief to the other great lust until they declared an end to the war. In no uncertain terms, the ancient Greek playwright skewered the ways of his nation's leaders, and he made it funny. (If you ever get a chance to see a production, do so; it really is funny — and wonderfully lewd.)

More recently, and yet over 200 years ago, Jonathon Swift tore apart the politics of his day in "Gulliver's Travels," a novel entertaining enough to be enjoyed today (and amenable to a variety of productions). Will Rogers was famous for his political comment as much as anything: "I'm not a member of an organized political party," he said, "I'm a Democrat" — words that continue to ring true. In the 60s and 70s, some of the most prescient and accurate political commentary in our nation came from comedians: Mort Sahl, Lenny Bruce, James Gregory, the Smothers Brothers (yup; you had to be there). I'd even throw in writers like Ring Lardner, Jr, who wrote the screenplay for M*A*S*H, the best anti-Vietnam war movie of the day.

So Stewart and Colbert are doing nothing new. They are following an ancient tradition, using comedy to illuminate what others try to keep dark. Are they serving as a source of reliable information? Well, that's tricky. In order for their jokes to work, audiences have to know what the hell they are talking about. Many of their pieces require them to show actual news footage — the facts, if you will — before they can hammer the punchline. Of course they can manipulate these clips to make the jokes work, and they do, but if what they were doing was twisting what newsmakers did and said completely out of recognition, audiences would grow tired of the bits. The shows would just be another version of Mystery Science Theatre, the News Edition.

But Stewart and Colbert not only attempt to begin with news items presented fairly, their shows work better because they do exactly that. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and the other right-wingers succeed by taking things out of context, by inventing premises that never existed, and by numerous other means of dishonesty. They have nothing of substance on which to stand; they must continually invent something they can sell. Stewart and Colbert know that something as close to the truth as they can make works even better. They let politicians, Wall Street execs, media hacks and the rest hoist themselves by their own, as it were, pitards; the jokes are just waiting to be plucked like low-hanging fruit. But it only works because they present an honest introduction to their jokes: they rely on the truth to be their straight man.

I am a deaniac. First, foremost and central to my political life: I am a deaniac. I got involved in politics in 2003 because of Howard Dean's campaign; I stayed involved in 2004 because of Howard Dean's post-campaign example. First he had the courage to do something extraordinarily insane, and then he showed even greater courage by not using the nature of his defeat in the primaries — a dirty, viscious attack enabled by members of his own party — to give up and walk away. He showed that the long-term goal matters far more than any short-term set-backs.

In 2005, a grassroots effort among Democrats made Dr Dean Chair of the DNC, and the party's hopes were reborn. Howard Dean is the leading progressive in the nation. No one understands what it takes to win as clearly as he does. His 50-State Strategy was not simply brilliant politics; it was the epitome of democratic politics. He wanted everyone to be part of the political process, not just the few with clout and power, and so he did what he could to enable that participation. He brought the party to the people, and he gave the the resources to build a local party that could be successful.

And successful it was, beyond anyone's hopes. In 2006, the 50-State Strategy brought the Democrats back into leadership, and in 2008 Barack Obama used it to win the White House. Dean's vision was a break from everything any national party had ever tried, and it was an incredible success. Yes, the build-up of Bush failures helped greatly, but Dean had the structure in place to build on that political opportunity. What he showed as the path to success in 2006 became the blueprint for Obama in 2008.

Unfortunately, Rahm Emmanuel thinks he was the one who won 2006. As head of the DCCC, he fought against the 50-State Strategy; the millions of dollars that Dean let the state parties keep, Emmanuel wanted in DC. His plan was the same old plan that had the parties held as sacrosanct before Dean: pick the districts you can win, and pour the money there. As for the rest of the country, well, to put it in Emmanuelian terms: Fuck 'em.

Had the Democrats taken the Emmanuel route in 2006, they might have regained the House, but by a much smaller margin. Obama might have still have won the presidency, but the old way of fighting for Congressional seats that Emmanuel advocated would not have brought the huge wins of 2008. Those are the direct result of Dr Dean's leadership, and Rahm Emmanuel will never forgive Dean for that.

Unfortunately, Obama selected Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and that means Dean is dead to this administration. He should have been made Secretary of HHS; no one else would have fought harder for health care, and no one would have fulfilled better Obama's pledge to have an inclusive (as opposed to bi-partisan) process. But Rahm Emmanuel will not allow Howard Dean any role in the party while he can do anything about it, and he is in a position to do exactly that. And that is why Rahm Emmanuel is Barack Obama's biggest mistake to this point.

Fortunately for the country, Howard Dean as a free agent will be able to have a huge impact on the health care process. He can now return to Democracy for America, utilizing its huge and committed membership to push the Administration to stick to a program of change that delivers what was promised — no matter the pressure to cave. I'd love to see him team with the Achimedes Project and Dr Kitzhaber; the two programs are virtual twins. And as a free agent, Rahm Emmanuel will be able to do nothing but stew. He can't attack Dean or try to stop him; he's not stupid enough to even try. He'll never give him an iota of credit, of course, but Howard Dean proved in 2004 that he's a big enough man not to worry about getting credit or being treated fairly. His purpose is to bring change to systems that hurt those who most need their government's care. He doesn't need to get credit for it; he just wants to see it happen.

Rahm Emmanuel could learn a lot from Howard Dean. Including how to be a decent human being.

I rarely bother reading Jack Bog. For one thing, he doesn't write very much, and I'm not into blogs that simply point to the work other people have done. I have better ways to find such things (it's called research). For another, he just seems rather full of himself. Maybe that's the point, but it's also the reason for the dictionary's newest word: Meh.

Still, I see his headlines roll by (in clumps) in the Oregon BlogWire when I'm reading BlueOregon. I rarely follow the headlines (I've learned the payoff isn't worth it) but this one I had to see: "Mayor Creepy Gets Religion". If there's one thing I really dislike, it's the abuse of religion, but I simply could not believe Sam Adams would be turning to religion or church to help bail himself out. But that's what the headline, and the single line of text Jack struggled to type out, indicated. Adams was fleeing to the churches to save, not his soul, but his career.

Well, not so much. Sam did go to meet a bunch of church leaders. He went with Nick Fish, currently not seeking any kind of salvation that has been made public. They picked up $100,000 donated by evangelical churches. From OregonLive:

The money will go toward the Home Again Mentoring Project and the Portland Schools Transition Center. The mentoring project helps homeless families transition into stable housing, and the transition center encourages youth who've dropped out of school to resume their education.

Also scheduled to attend were "mayors and civic leaders from Portland, Vancouver, Beaverton and Hillsboro". So, more accurately speaking, Mayor Adams joined a group of local mayors, government officials, and civic and religious leaders for the kickoff of a community service project. On their behalf, he received a donation of $100,000 to be used to help homeless families and their children.

This is creepy?

In other words, an opportunity for tens of thousands of Metro residents to find a way to give time and energy to their communities and fellow citizens, whatever their spiritual beliefs, becomes a chance for Jack Bog to do some name-calling.

Sweet. Jesus. No wonder I don't bother.

Approximately 20% of my paycheck goes to taxes of various kinds. If I paid no taxes, here's some of the things for which I would have more money:

• A larger, nicer place to live.
• Eating out more often.
• Very nice bottles of wine.
• Toys: a new MacBook, a big flatscreen, an intense sound system.
• Travel travel travel.

Here's what I get instead:

• Government.

The reaganistas, of course, say this is exactly what is wrong with our entire system. I say this is what is right. Do I want to go to Australia, get a MacBook, enjoy breakfast out every Saturday? Of course I do. My list was not a rhetorical device. I do want more money. I also want roads on which to ride my bike, police and fire when in need, bus service, health care, a national defense, proper and correct funding for the Coast Guard (in which my younger son serves), a properly run Veterans Affairs Dept (for him and his older brother, serving in the Oregon National Guard), and more. I want someone to make sure my food is safe. I want someone to make sure planes do not hit each other in mid-air. I want a safety net for those who are victims of other citizens, of the economy, of their parents' stupidity. I want building inspectors (and I want them to do their jobs, which means I want inspectors for the inspectors and standards by which they all work).

Willamette Week is currently running insider info from former Sam Adams insider Roland Chlapowski that — and this is the part of the article that actually matters — makes Beau Breedlove the one who pursued Adams, not the other way around, lessening the possibility that Adams violated any actual laws. The sidebar to this story is that Chlapowski was once a major Adams aide and now believes he's been shunted off into the wilderness. Despite this, Chlapowski does something unusual in this day and age: He vouches for Adams rather than seeking vengeance.

Which is very cool and possibly one young man's way of being self-serving:

Chlapowski says he expected Adams to bring him back onto his staff in January when he took office as mayor, but he says Adams broke that promise.

On Jan. 22, Adams moved Chlapowski to the newly created Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, which is now laying off staff. There, he is doing research on peak oil but says he feels Adams has abandoned him.

“I put so much blood, sweat and tears into Sam’s success,” says Chlapowski. “I went from being his right-hand man to being disposed of.”

Hyperbolic, but understandable. Adams needs to get this guy in a better job, because this is one smart cookie. He refutes Breedlove, to Adams' benefit, while also letting the mayor know he is not a happy camper. Unhappy campers have a way of turning from supportive to vindictive: "Don't dispose of me, Sam; I've got your back here — for now." I don't know if that's Chlapowski's endgame, but that last sentence is ominous. (Although I hope Chlapowski would understand that to move him back to a more prominent position might be seen by the sharks circling Adams as a political move to protect the mayor. Chlapowski may just have to accept he's not going to get the job with the mayor he hopes for. And I hope that does not induce him to change his story. Keeping the good faith is always a good idea, no matter what others do.

Ok, not really, but this was careless: On January 24th (and yes, I'm running a bit slow here), introducing BTA's support of the "Idaho Stop Sign" bill (bicyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield, after yielding right-of-way to pedestrians and others), the picture to the right was used as an illustration.

This picture was not an accident: it was taken by BTA website editor Jonathan Maus. I know that many bicyclists will take any comment about safety and helmets as an excuse to cry about the "nanny state" and "we're grown-ups and can take care of ourselves" but this is still irresponsible blogourlism. As a life-long bicyclist (nearly fifty years of pedaling) and as someone whose life was recently saved by a helmet, I see no reason not to use illustrative photos that also illustrate safety.

The Idaho law will only pass if legislators and others believe that the majority of bicyclists are going to be responsible and safe, as I think the majority will be. To that end, online discussions that show bicyclists being unsafe — and riding without a helmet is as unsafe as you get, whether it's a matter of choice or not — only give credance to arguments that bicyclists are not to be trusted with a grown-up's law. I support the law (with addendums, to be discussed later) and if it were to fail because too many bicyclists and biking advocates refuse to acknowledge the need to be uber-diligent in how their arguments are presented, that would be more than a shame.

It would be the fault of careless, politically naive advocates who could have done a lot better.

With Obama and Clinton striding the world stage, state legislature facing life-and-death issues and clowns like Rush Limbaugh and every living soul at Fox News seeking to turn American democracy in their very freak show, we too often forget that politics is not limited to the large scale. All across the country, every day and every evening, people are meeting in small groups: committees, work groups, ad hoc sessions, dinner meetings, accidental gathers. In every possible dimension, and for every possible reason, Americans get together to do politics on a scale that does not draw the attention of any media but does allow for individuals to have a say and feel as if they are part of the process.

Given the way the Dean and Obama campaigns grew into life from small, unnoticed meetings, no one should ever doubt that the small meeting they attend does not matter.

An example. Tonight I attended the Platform and Resolution Committee meeting of the Multnomah County Democrats, not as a committee member but as a presenter: I have a resolution I want to bring to the Central Committee, and this is the most common means of doing so. Six committee members did meet, with Gordon Hillesland chairing the committee. Three resolutions were heard (by the time I left), one on concealed gun permits, one on Instant Runoff Voting, and mine, to support HB2556, the "Keep the Guard Home" campaign. The content of the resolutions did not matter so much as the fact that eleven people bother to show up for over two hours on a Thursday evening to discuss items they believed were important and to be part of the political process, however micro the scale.

The first resolution did not receive a recommendation, more because of a lack of clarity in the language than any disagreement on substance. The IRV discussion (more correctly, the resolution in support of SB 29, which will allow local governments in Oregon to experiment with IRV) was discussed in detail and then given a thumbs-up, 6-0 (all resolutions move on to the next Central Committee meeting regardless, but a vote to recommend does mean something). My resolution received a 4-1 vote, after I rewrote a number of items to clarify the language (a common problem, it turns out, for resolutions coming from novices) and to remove some unnecessary and inflammatory words. The one vote to not approve came because the committee member thought this should be dealt with at the national and not the state level; everyone at the meeting agreed with the substance of my resolution and HB 2556.

The argument made against limiting the bonuses paid to big CEOs is that big, big money is needed to get big, big talent. The easy rejoinder, of course, is that most of these big talents have proven to be miserable failures. The bonuses have not brought talent and success; they've simply been a way for a few individuals to rob many others blind.

I hope the limits hold and that many of the usual suspects refuse to participate in the corporations receiving stimulus funding. This will force corporations to do what they clearly should have done long ago: Look for leaders who care about their corporation's success and not about their own portfolio. How? Find men and women who are looking to make their name, not their fortune. Most of the great successes in American business history have come from new players in the game, people who have brought new products, new ideas and new companies into the marketplace and kicked capitalist ass. Many of the most successful recent companies were started by young people who were not trying to get filthy rich; they were trying to live out a dream.

So instead of whining that CEO X, who failed to rescue five other corporations but will surely have success here, simply cannot be bought under the new rules, go find a young man or woman with actual talent and a record that demonstrates potential. Don't hope that a Larry Brown will fix something when you have the chance to hire the next Phil Jackson. In fact, looking at both technology and sports, it's amazing how often someone new on the scene brings explosive success. With one bonus, to boot: You get to pay them less.

Experience? It appears to be an excuse to line one's pocket. How about going for actual ability instead?