Let me state the obvious, the implication in Glenn's column: David Brooks is no journalist.

He has violated at least two rules of journalism.

1) The journalist isn't the story.

2) Sources must be cited and speakers identified.

Fortunately, we have Jon Stewart to show us what real journalism is...

Sympathies to you and your family, Patrick. She sounds like a wonderful person who led a full life, and will be remembered.

And the column was good, too.

During the Cold War, the sphincter conservatives in the US went after US citizens. As Mort Sahl put it re the House Committee on Un-American Activities: "Every time the Russians throw an American in jail, the Committee throws an American in jail to get even."

Now, we throw people in jail for small amounts of drugs but people who rip up the Constitution are free. Of course, a disproportionately large number of minorities are in jail and a disproportionately large number of radical right wingers declare themselves above the law.

The CIA agent's kidnapping and extraordinary rendition was inept and unproductive. Oh, and illegal. Why doesn't anyone on the right ever demand personal accountability from the people who are supposed to be protecting us?

Just like we did during the Cold War, we are sinking to the level of our enemy. Hey, we're supposed to be The Good Guys. We should act like it.

I'm with you, Glenn. I don't think the attack can legitimately be called "terrorism". It's a crime, and a horror.

On the other hand, like most terrorist incidents, sphincter clenching fear is not the proper response. What would have prevented the Fort Hood attack is not extra security or removing shoes at checkpoints, but a greater reliance on detective work and understanding of psychology.

When Brooks says a "narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world" he is wrong on the word "emerged". The fringes have always hated The Other.

You, Glenn, say "very same people who express such moral outrage and self-righteous horror over events like the Fort Hood shootings themselves have immense amounts of innocent human blood on their hands", you then completely ignore genocidal wars against Israel, suicide bombings, missile attacks against civilians, kidnappings and other horrors committed by arabs and arab refugees.

Both of you only see what you want to see, and completely ignore any outrages that don't conform to your worldview. And neither of your worldviews are helping to solve a problem that predates Islam or Judaism. Both of you slide over all forms of arab on arab violence, such as Hamas storming the mosque a few months ago or the Honor Killings of women who have been raped that don't involve religion at all.

Talking about Maj. Hasan, Brooks writes, It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion." He is correct. I see no such attempt at balance in your column.

Reluctantly, point to Brooks.

Please, Glenn. Brooks didn't talk about, much less attempt to justify, the war in Iraq. Your headline is seriously skewed.

Then, in a comment where I take both of you to task, you accuse me of being on "his side".

Further, you continue the non-sequitur with a slur against me. I didn't say anything about Israel; such comments belong in a different forum. Here, I point out that you are, again, only presenting one view of a complex situation. I don't have a "blinding affection" for anything. It's you have the blinders.

I'll let Brooks fight his own battles, but you are accusing me of something which is the exact opposite of my position. You owe me an apology.

You said, "You and Brooks share the same blinding affection for Israel, making it anything but surprising that you are on his side."

That's two inaccuracies. I don't have a blinding affection for Israel. As I mentioned in the last post, I didn't defend or attack Israel at all and only pointed out some of what you left out.

And, by the way, neither did Brooks. I agree with your overall criticism of his writings, but your response to this column grinds your axe, not his.

Secondly, I wasn't on his side. As mentioned in the last post, I took you both to task. Heck, the subject line was, "Both of you are wrong for the same reason"

In your exchange, I gave him the point because he was correct in not rushing to judgment in the Ft. Hood shooting whereas you just flew off the handle in a series of non-sequiturs.

Is this specific enough for you? Do I get an apology?

What the heck are you talking about?

I went out of my way to talk about the larger picture, and you can only see one small slice. I'm not going to talk about my "religious, cultural or emotional bonds" to any country until you demonstrate some degree of journalistic integrity on the subject and avoid unwarranted personal attacks whenever your prejudices are challenged.

I've tried to present several sides to a complex issue. You haven't.

What did this mean: "Reluctantly, point to Brooks"?

I've answered that, at least twice. Please read previous comments.

You still owe me an apology. Since it's time to leave this ridiculous and insulting discussion, you can e-mail me.

As usual, the British press is beating the American press in actual journalism. The news media doesn't always have to be adversarial, but it should never be the palsy-walsy bunch of wimps it has become in the last thirty years.

Cheers to the Guardian. Boo to Fox, CNN, the New York Times and all the other media which want "access" more than they want to provide information.