I used to read CP back in the day, and I thought she was pretty good. But I was also much less informed in that period, and the large amount of high quality on-line writing that exists today (i.e. blogs) was totally absent then. So, now Salon brings her back, but time has moved on while CP really hasn't. Thus her "analysis", stripped of self-referential puffery, is not particularly good, and I don't intend to read it in the future. There's no need to get emotional about this, though. Salon after all is a business, not your all volunteer newsletter. If she brings in more money via more page hits or more subs than Salon loses from cancelled subs or less page views, then in a business context she is a useful addition to Salon. I want Salon to continue, because it does (although less frequently than in the past) provide original invesitgative journalism, which is a rare commodity these days. To me the addition of Glenn Greenwald, imho a brilliant writer and analysit, nullifies whatever pseudo-insight CP may bring, so in the end we're even (or maybe slighlty ahead). Those who are supremely angry would be better served supporting local Dem candidates to replace R's, that's the only thing that has a chance to make a difference in the long run. CP is irrelevant.

joe:

Is a doctors opinion more correct about your medical condition than yours? Is an architect more correct about structural stability than you are? You're being willfully obtuse. Being in the military does not make someone "correct" in the sense of being absolutely right. They have far more experience than you do, so their opinion should carry more weight.

Petreus is a current general in this administration, so he is not likely to say what he really thinks, or he's out of a job and potentially in a lot of trouble. That would be true in almost any administration, and is true in many other walks of life.

Just admit it: you just want us to kill the crap out of people there. All of these pro-surge pro-occupation arguments come down to that. We just need to kill enough of them so they give up. But they never will.

Ask yourself this: if this country were somehow occupied by a foreign power who wished to impose a better system of government on us, would you say "oh thank you dear liberators", or would you pick up a gun and protect yourself and your family? Even if their system WAS demonstrably better, how many Americans would support it?

Hating blogs is retarded. Blogging is a technology, nothing more. Do you hate microwaves as well? Attacking bloggers (which should be read as writers) because their opinions mean nothing, or they're "unimportant", begs the question: nothing/unimportant relative to what? Are (fill in opinion writer you like best) views more relevant/important/right/whatever because they are in a widely read newspaper or magazine? Clearly not. Regardless of your ideology, it is the content that matters, not the medium of distribution. Blogging is important only because it is a medium/technology that potentially allows for widespread disemination of alternative opinion/analysis by REGULAR PEOPLE who would not otherwise have had a large audience for their writing. Do blogs affect election results? I'd say there is evidence that they can help, although they're not "king makers" by any stretch. Blogs don't need a huge percentage of the population to read them in order to make them effective. All they need is highly motivated people to read them, and to give money to support whatever cause/candidate they advocate. History provides numerous examples of passionate and motivated individuals that made an enormous difference (maybe Martin Luther was a proto-blogger). Yes, blogs can be circle jerks and echo chambers, but the same can be said of the respective political parties, and many other organizations. Anyway, all this kerfuffle shows is that politics is dirty, and anything you said/wrote in the past in any context whatsoever can be used against you.

Disclaimer: I read Majikthese on occasion, and the other bloggers in question not at all.

Al Gore did not win an Oscar. The documentary he was in (and was instrumental in creating) won the Oscar, an possibly the documentary's director won one as well (don't re-call). Unlike movies, I don't believe the subjects of/in the documentary are even eligible for an Oscar.

Why is there always a conflation of the terms immigrant and illegal immigrant? There's nothing wrong with immigrants, that's partly what made this country great. There is a big problem with illegal immigrants, because they are breaking the law!

If illegal immigrants can become legal by paying $5000, then we have effectively commoditized citizenship. How does that make any sense at all? It is NOT too expensive to ensure businesses don't hire illegals. There is nothing too expensive in this country if there is a will to do it (e.g. the Iraq boondogle). Yes whole segments of agriculture might go down the tubes. So what? If they were so dependent on cheap illegal labor, then they were intrinsically poor business models and deserve to fail.