Oh yes, them Union cats that took the corporate jet to Washington to beg. I forgot, see. Yep, and them UAW fat cats forced the automakers into the product choices they've settled on.. trucks and SUVs for everyone. And you believe them fat union cats are just sitting back with glee while the automakers crumble, right? The same unions that will have how many members out of work if all three companies go under? They're the reason why the automakers need money? Wow, I never thought paying employees for their work would make a company go under!

I need to know why you see fit to heap the blame on the unions without mentioning the managers or the executives. Obviously these managers and executives don't get pay raises, benefits, bonuses, or corporate jets to hop around on, do they? They're not costs that ANY company would have to account for. Nope. Its dem unions, and da dems dey support, dur hur hur.

The UAW isn't run by angels, and that isn't what I am saying in this post. What I am saying is that foisting the "chief" amount of blame on the UAW for the mess the automakers are in now is myopic, self-serving, disingenuous, and childish... at best.

Is it a big deal? To me, not really.

In fact, I bet the idea for the option came from Marketing.

"One more attribute that players have control over! TOTAL character customization!!!! NOW CHOOSE WHAT FILE FORMAT WE DISPLAY YOUR CHARACTER PORTRAIT IN! Are you a JPEGGER or a PNGist?? Or are you HARDCORE GIF4LIF!!!!!!!!!!111!"

Go, go team marketing.

In reality? I've met a lot of players that believe their avatar is their digital self. They see their character as how they represent their real world self. It is these players that I find are most likely to be upset to learn a player is playing a character that is of a different gender. Some people get really worked up... I'm not sure if its betrayal issues, gender issues, sexuality issues or Freudian issues. Regardless, to some people it is a big deal.

Despite the steady stream of hyperbole that we've suffered through, over the last 8 years and even before, I am convinced that hyperbole does more to weaken the strength of your argument then enhance your rhetorical position.

The letter noted smacks of hyperbole. It comes across as an individual who is distressed about a position. And that, in and of itself, is very easy to understand. If the letter had stopped at the expression of disappointment for the selection, and the detailing of the hurt feelings, I think we all could have empathized with the author. However, the author went on to demand their political donation back, and included language condemning the campaigns request for money.

Really? Did he really need to write that?

I see few reasons why the author felt compelled to ask for their money back.

1. He wants PE Obama to see consequence for the selection of Pastor Warren.

2. In a sea of complaint letters, the author felt he needed to one-up the extremism of his disfavor to seem MOST distraught over the affair, thereby getting noticed by their peers.

3. He is a person that is upset enough with one personnel decision, that this then corrupts the presidency absolutely. Because of this ONE selection, the author is ready to condemn the whole presidency, Obama himself, instead of seeing what the campaign is all about.

The act of requesting a donation back because of the selection for a player in the inauguration seems to me petty, childish, irrational, unnecessary, and just the kind of temper-tantrum-ing that is least likely to persuade people to think your way.

Please, someone, explain to me how this sort of thinking isn't the exact same behaviors that progressive bloggers excoriate the current administration for: "If you ain't FOR us, you must be AGAINST us!"

gah. I

@ACF

Did you really need to say that bruce is allowed to say what he is saying? I don't think you did. Did you just want to deflect criticisms leveled at Bruce? It is perfectly OK to say that what he posted was out of line. No one said he couldn't or shouldn't post. No one said he wasn't allowed to think that. If anything, in this marketplace of ideas, he put his product out there, and you're saying we cannot review his product. I think it is YOUR statement, that does not belong. That or you really should know how condescending you look when you post that about being able to think what we want.

@Bruce

Did you apply for Bush's CIA? Your posts torture logic. You attack the messenger by impugning her intent, you post misleading "facts" to support your supposition. Next you'll be telling us that Scooter Libby is innocent, and that Trickle-Down works.

@Joan

1. Glad to hear Pres. Obama can wow the townhalls. It IS nice to see a president work with a non-vetted crowd. 2. Bring back blogreport.

Instead of just slandering Mz. Behar, please point out where she was "slow-witted" and "badly informed".

And just where do you get off claiming the left is insulting her credentials and appearance? Some comments on a board? Wow. I guess that's a conspiracy now. I guess that is EXACTLY how every single "left" sees it, because Elephantman used it to set up his strawman... wait a second. Do you use any other logical constructions aside from strawmen? I really am curious.

Unless you would like the entire "right" tarred as Little Green Footballs, don't go making sweeping assumptions.