This post reminded me of the run-up to the opening session of the new Democratic congress. In article after article -- "news" articles -- I kept reading about how "vicious Democratic infighting" had "already" begun (love that suggestion of inevitability) . . . that the "fierce and divisive leadership battle" between Murtha and Hoyer had "tarnished and badly undermined Pelosi" . . . that the Dems were "in a state of disarray," etc.

And then I'd look around, and could find almost NO Democrats who weren't unified and optimistic. And I'd see polls confirming my intuitive sense that Democratic enthusiasm for Pelosi was quite strong.

Who -- and where -- are these Democrats who are constantly "fiercely divided" over petty bullshit?

And that's to say nothing of the fact that this media paradigm -- debate equals weakness -- is terribly unhealthy. The Republicans, who for six years mindlessly passed the most destructive legislation, are praised for their unity, while Democrats, when they engage in responsible, appropriate debate, are tarred as "divided" and "disorganized," "coming apart at the seams," etc.

The good news is, people just aren't listening to the MSM anymore. I'm actually a little shocked at the way the polling data has held steady across the board in spite of a sustained wave of media distortion for the last several months. For instance, the MSM canard about there being "no allegations of wrongdoing" in the U.S. att'y firings -- because federal prosecutors "serve at His Majesty's pleasure" -- hasn't stuck; all of the polls seem to show that a majority of Americans smell a rat.

Anyway: great post, Glenn, as usual.

"We need strict gun control" is equivalent to "I hate U.S. policies on immigration?" Both are equally rational responses to the Virginia Tech killings? Both originate from the same impulse -- the childish-but-oh-so-human need to impose order on chaos?

I'm not sure.

And: who exactly is using this event as an excuse to bash Koreans? I'm addicted to being outraged by bigots and right-wingers, and I've got to say, I haven't heard a single racist sentiment expressed by anyone anywhere in relation to this story, except for the anti-"Paki" nutcase quoted in the Salon piece.

So: basically, this comic is astutely (poignantly!) observing, and wryly commenting on, a social phenomenon that doesn't actually exist.

This is the first time I've had the thought that Tom the Dancing Bug, sometimes so brilliant, might really be no better than the mawkish editorial cartoons (with their pat -- and often completely incorrect -- conclusions) found in local dailies all across the country. Color me grossed out.

Please, let's not respond to the Edwards-is-a-vacuous-pretty-boy trolling of that last comment.

Even when people chime in with witty smackdowns to commenters like that, it ends up totally derailing the discussion. I understand that message-board debates are usually pretty shallow and unenlightening (that's a fair description, in any event, of my own, mostly regrettable, contributions) . . . but it's still discouraging that even on a site like Salon, some buffoon can run into the room (or -- hey! -- the "salon"), shout a bunch of idiotic insults at people, and totally stop the conversation dead in its tracks.

I'm all for hearing more conservative voices on sites like these -- and my own politics aren't exactly those of the average Salon reader, I'm guessing -- but these sorts of comments are the equivalent of playground name-calling; they don't have any good effects on anything (they don't foster discussion), and neither do the clever (and not-so-clever) responses.

And yes: I appreciate the irony that, in this comment, I'm doing exactly what I'm asking others not to do. I guess what I mean is . . . like, as a general policy, can we try to ignore the dumbest and shittiest of the crackpot commenters?

I've been trying, without luck, to find this newspaper article I read a couple of weeks ago -- I think I followed a link to it from Media Matters -- in which various D.C. reporters considered the charge that their social relationships with the politicians they covered were undermining their supposedly "adversarial" professional relationship with those same politicians. One of the reporters had a priceless comment . . . something like: "Well, I'd be worried about these parties if there were any evidence that it was actually causing political correspondents to be less aggressive in their reporting. However, I don't think anybody would say that the White House Press Corps has gone easy on Bush." (D'oh!)

Did anyone else see this? If you know what I'm talking about, perhaps you can put up a link.

Unrelated Q, to Glenn and others: do you now find yourself (ironically) dreading the countdown to the end of Bush's term? After six years of glaring at the clock, willing the minute hand to move faster, my big fear now is that Bush & Co. will slink out of office without being held accountable, in any meaningful way, for the assorted felonies they've cheerfully and publicly admitted to. If the Democrats take much longer to get the ball rolling with their various investigations, then any talk of indictments and perhaps impeachment will be close enough to the 2008 election that the MSM will unanimously declare that Congress is just trying to score cheap political points. And after Bush is gone, the consensus will be that the country needs to "move on," and that it's therefore a terrible idea for Congress, or the Justice Department (assuming we still have one), or the President (Democratic or Republican) to waste time and energy looking into the various felonies the Bush cabal may have committed while in power.

Finally, as always: great post, Glenn.

I don't understand why Broadsheet linked to this. It just seems like a bunch of mean-spirited schoolyard jokes about "fat" and "pizza-faced" celebrities. Wearying and predictable.

Not "distateful," whatever that means.