Bill Moyer's "Journal" is no longer on the air.  He retired from broadcast, much to the relief of those on whom he shined a bright light of accountability through journalism. 

Much of the content of his last few programs concerned the financial disaster that we have experienced in the past couple years.  He has interviewed authors, regulators, commentators, analysts, politicians, etc. for the purpose of explaining what happened, how it happened, who was (and is) responsible and steps needed moving forward.  Moyer is an excellent interviewer and commentator that has the gift of presenting an issue from multiple perspectives and leaves the viewer with a greater understanding of the issue without dumbing it down.

Two concepts came up in recent interviews regarding the financial crisis that really piqued my interest.  In separate interviews, the terms "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" were used to describe the conditions that have evolved to allow the financial institutions to get away with what they have that has created the circumstances that we are struggling with today. 

President Obama was in Illinois yesterday and was met with tea party protesters which turned into a near riot according to local news. 

A Facebook group praying for the death of Obama reached 1 million. 

Limbaugh and Beck continue to refer to Obama as a racist, a socialist, a Marxist, and a variety of other unflattering and inaccurate "ists". 

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that hate groups have increased dramatically since Obama took office.

Using a clever trick of perception, Tim Wise asked reader of his blog to imagine the public reaction if the "Tea Party" antics and those of political representatives and celebrities were played out by a predominately black demographic rather than the almost exclusively white make-up the individuals in question.  It is a powerful perspective.

The media appears to be completely enamored with the "Tea Party" and I can't figure out which is the tail and which is the dog.  When one digs beneath the surface, it becomes clear (based on the funding sources) that this is hardly a grassroots organization formed by like minded people for the purpose of affecting change for the common good.  The genesis of and funding for this concept is from wealthy interests intent on disrupting the debate on issue counter to theirs.  Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but there is a degree of inauthenticity here that would seem to negate the value of this voice in this case.

Although I have been an active participant on the Internet for the past 17 years, I have never "blogged" in that time.  At least not in the official sense of having a "blog" and maintaining the content.  Frankly, I found the concept quite narcissistic and was turned off to the idea.  Not that I do not possess a good amount of narcissism myself.  I just didn't feel compelled to put it on display for others to criticize.