Ever so often a man comes along, I mean sometimes a woman comes along, but this time a man comes along and clarifies.  He makes order out of chaos.  He helps us understand what seems to be incomprehensible. Jay Rosen has clarified a Fairness Doctrine, unwritten, but followed by the general 'media'. (Huff Post)

He tells us to draw a large circle.  I mean kind of a large circle, say a circle with a 5 inch diameter.  If you drew say, an eight foot circle you would have to do it on the floor and you could risk hurting your carpet.  Then draw a circle within the circle with a, say, 2 inch diameter.

This is the double circle visual aid to help us understand three levels of debate in this country.
I have changed the order of his discussion to suit me and my lame points.

Looking at the area between the two circles, Jay would call it the sphere of legitimate debate.

The inner circle represents the sphere of consensus.That upon which everyone, or mostly everyone agrees is incontestable.

1. ) The sphere of consensus is the "motherhood and apple pie" of politics, the things on which everyone is thought to agree.

The area between the two circles could be called the reasonable debate area.

2.) The sphere of legitimate debate is the one journalists recognize as real, normal, everyday terrain. They think of their work as taking place almost exclusively within this space.

The wacko sphere is that area outside the big circle:

3.) In the sphere of deviance we find "political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.

This is all fine and dandy.  But it does not work.And I will show you why.

The tiny circle is now so tiny, metaphorically speaking that, it becomes inconsequential.

There is a significant percentage of people in this country that believe the earth is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old.  I swear to God that a couple weeks ago I turned on one of those 'community channels' by accident and a preacher whom I have seen before on real TV was pointing to a large picture of a moon of Uranus.  I missed the discussion but heard the conclusion:

AND THAT IS WHY THE EARTH COULD NOT BE OLDER THAN EIGHT THOUSAND YEARS.

How would I build a consensus with this reverend about anything?  It is organizations that include this idiot that finance Fred Flintstone museums that show man living among the dinosaurs.  I would say to these people, how do we see galaxies that are millions of light years from us if the earth were eight thousand years old? The light took millions of years to reach us. And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, they simply say that god can do anything and that the speed of light is not a constant.

Let us use this model of analysis on a more recent set of events.

Brad Schlozman worked at the DOJ as an appointee of w and was in charge of hiring.He testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that politics had nothing to do with his hiring policy. As reported at TPM, 63 of the 65 individuals he hired, were republicans.The investigation of his hiring practices cited docuements including emails and testimony of those who worked under him that he would never hire a liberal or anyone involved in 'ebonics'.   One person who had been a civil servant for 27 years with the  DOJ called Schlozman the single worse human being he ever worked for or with in the department.

Oh, and I should point out that BS was HEAD OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.

In other words he lied to the Senate.  Flat out lied.  And the DOJ has decided not to prosecute.

Now there had to have been discussions within the DOJ concerning whether or not BS lied, about a material matter, to the Senate Committee.  The decision to prosecute was within the discretion of the DOJ. So there had to have been a discussion as to whether to prosecute someone who has lied to a Senate Committee while under oath.

Schlozman surrounded himself with like-minded officials at the Department of Justice. When he was due to meet in 2004 with John Tanner, then chief of the voting section, he asked how Tanner liked his coffee.

"Mary Frances Berry style -- black and bitter," Tanner replied by e-mail, referring to the African American woman who chaired the U.S. Civil Rights Commission from 1993 to 2004. Schlozman circulated the e-mail. "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response," he wrote.

Now, forget the lying to the committee for a sec.  These two bastards still have jobs with the CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  The main investigatory arm of the DOJ that is supposed to protect this nation from civil rights violations.

Oh and Tanner?  He is down in Alabama in charge of making sure everybody's voting rights are protected.

How in god's name could I ever, agree on anything with these two racist bastards?  And, how could I agree with the decision to leave them in their respective positions? I mean for a year, or a month, or a day or an hour? Which immediately brings to mind the question:  How could I reach a consensus with anyone in charge at the DOJ who did not fire their asses, immediately, no notice, for cause and refer the matter for further deliberations somewhere?

This new Attorney General who took over for Gonzo was supposed to be better, like the Secretary of Defense was better than Rummy.

This Attorney General, as far as I am concerned should be investigated for the single fact that BS and Tanner still have a job with the DOJ. To me, this is unforgivable. Which brings me back to the bible thumpers.

I could have dinner with the bible thumpers.  We could have a consensus concerning lying, stealing and killing people.  Sure, the BTs would maintain that killing is not all bad, as long as you are killing the right people.  Thou Shalt Not Kill would be subject to an interpretation by these people.  They would cite some Hebrew word and interpretation of that word, probably now the interpretation of a Jew, but we let that slide.

There is a good chance that the BTs would agree that all men are created equal and maybe even that women are also on a par with men, with some differentials involved.

There is a good chance that the BTs would be against racism but I might find that there are disagreements as to their opposition to 'affirmative action.'

But I doubt that I could come to an agreement with Tanner or BS on one single  thing, one issue, and if I did I would immediately question my reasoning in reaching that agreement.

So I do not know about you, but I have crumpled up my concentric circle diagram and thrown it on the floor.  It will eventually get into my garbage, but I want it to remain where it is so that I remember that DIAGRAMS DO NOT ALWAYS WORK.