The real funny thing is Klavin seems to think he is in any way original. That He Is Just Saying What Needs To Be Said.

To be fair, he probably never got over the over-the-top proto-feminists of the '70s, who filled books and magazines all about how any male penetration was actually rape, and all sex should be restricted to the clitoris.

News flash: relationships are messy.

It is just a bunch of brown towel-head people with funny last names that are affected by this. They are obviously guilty of something or they wouldn't even be living there. What's all the fuss about?

GG,

It never ceases to amaze me how many important topics you cover on a regular basis. Quite frankly, I can't keep up even though I hit your page as many as five times in one work day! (Well at least I'm not wasting time playing solitaire.)

Although I would be hard pressed to improve on any of the arguments you put forth, I wonder if it would be an improvement in format if you maintained a live-list of "unanswered questions" (sounds like "unclaimed territory") that are distilled out of the columns you write. Many of your better comments-section contributors here could make suggestions.

I know you don't control the page format for salon.com, but given that you have worked this enterprise up to the point that many of the right important people are reading it, I would like to see something like the following in an always-presented side-bar:

Unanswered Questions for Obama on civil liberties:

1. Other than the executive order to cease using torture from that point on,

2. Why are there no investigations into the prior administration's activities on the systemic torture of detainees that resulted in the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of them?

3. Is it your position that the evidence that crimes were committed is not sufficient to warrant an independent investigation, or that no investigation will take place because it is not politically expedient?

Unanswered questions for NPR ombudsman:

1. Why are you avoiding us?

Unanswered questions for Dana Milbank:

1. Why are you in high-dudgeon over Huffington Post's one good question when you can't say who Jeff Gannon stayed overnight with many times in the White House?

and so forth.

I'm too lazy to search -- but what does the conservative press think of Froomkin & HuffPo? Anybody know?

It would appear that the "free market" is speaking. You would think that they would like that.

What do you do when someone shouts out "no clothes" (like GG does here every day) and instead of the crowd acknowledging that there is indeed no clothes there they say, "well I like those clothes just fine."

The fable never goes there. But that seems to be what we have now.

So let's take at face value that "one out of seven" detainees "return to the jihad."

Is that an admission that 6 out of 7 should have been tried, acquitted, and released?

The deal? The deal is obvious -- any investigations will cause backlash that will destroy any hope of Obama having a successful presidency in any area. Whether the threat is real or not is a side issue. If enough of Obama's people believe it's true it will be true.

You might say the deal is bogus. The deal is false. It's a bad deal. But that's the deal.

President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities

I can't think how it can be any more clear. I happen to think it is a bad deal, a false deal, and absolutely not the deal many of us voted for.

However, there it is. The only way that investigations will go forward is if citizens pressure their representatives (and media signs on) to do it. Obama may even secretly want this but I don't care anymore. Realistically, it really shouldn't be his choice.

Emma Watson has what it takes to become the next generation's Lauren Bacall. We don't need another Britney Spears what we have a shortage of is a class act that is sexy.

I guess they are just too busy booking Liz Cheney to investigate.

Glenn, what I took away from the interview was that Chuck Todd considers what happens on Cable TV to be more definitive and more important that what happens in a court of law.

I appreciate his comment that there are two sides each of which thinks the other is irrational. That is certainly true. But that is what the law is all about. Todd kept saying things "can you not guarantee this won't become a show trial" or some such. Well no shit we can't guarantee that but does that mean we are supposed to excuse everything because of that possibility? That's what the neocons are counting on, that they will scream so long and so loud that everyone will just give up and they will get away with what they have done.

Mr Todd if you are reading this I think I speak for a lot of us in saying we appreciate your willingness to come online and talk with Glenn, even though we think you are way off base. Irrational.