Monetizing the Bush swarm

How's that for dot-com jargon? Glenn Reynolds has pointed out the desperate, new mob mentality of our mainstream press:

WE'RE BACK TO HEARING ABOUT KATRINA, which is a pretty good sign the media is trying to gin up an other anti-Bush swarm [...]

Katrina taught the media that if they all swarmed Bush at once they could do harm even if -- as turned out to be the case -- much of what they reported was outright false. I've noticed a lot more of that since. [...]

The news is that the port-deal publicity is dying down, Iraq's not in a civil war, and we need something to fill the headlines with anti-Bush stuff.

Five years ago, it could be called a bias. These days, it's so vicious and transparent that I really wonder if half of our chattering elites care about the world at all, in its present or future forms. To be rehashing Katrina is of no value to anyone except partisans.

It does not improve anyone's life and it does not inform the present day, at all. It's just another reason to hate Bush, which, frankly, many people don't need any help with. It is an angry echo chamber, and precious brain time is being wasted faster than napkins at a barbecue.

Two things come to mind here: First, we should really start using the term "Bush swarm" more often so that the lefty blogosphere stops believing they are onto something clever.

Second, we should set the following standard for "monetizing" the swarm. First, place a value on a writer's time. Let's say $50/hour. Then, let's count the hours that are spent writing (and reading) "Bush swarm" stories that contain no news. Multiply that out and recommend that people make that size of donation to the Katrina charity of their choice.

(This works for other mob phenomena like demonstrations, too.)

Knocking Bush down is fine. How about devoting similar resources lifting someone up?

Just a thought. It will offer a useful contrast between those who sincerely care about the present and those who prefer the past.