Did someone actually say somewhere this isn't a lefty blog?

Glenn's writings are the 'blog' and the comment section is just an extra; he would be just as popular if there was no comment section at all.

Is he a 'lefty'? Only he can answer that, and labels in these modern days mean damn little anyway. Paul Craig Roberts has been slamming the Bushes since the first Bush administration (Bush I) but I would not call him a 'lefty'.

So far, most of Glenn's posts seem to be more of the 'setting the record straight' variety and he does not seem the type to cover for Democrats after they take over. You will see, since the Democrats will win big in 2008 unless something unforeseen happens.

Those folks who challenge those in power sometimes seem to be a 'lefty' or a 'rightie' depending on who is in power at the time. I predict that Glenn will point out wrongdoing among politicians and media types regardless of party.

Paul Dirks: " ...He views the entire world as if it is football game..."

Sigh; yes you are correct.

I am very afraid that America has reached a place where that is true, of far too many people. As a kid in the south, I often heard adults claim they 'voted for the best man' rather than for the party label. I do not hear that talk much anymore and I miss it.

Most normal people have the same dreams for the people of their country, they differ only on the best way to reach the goal. So why can these folks not discuss their differences honestly, and without recrimination, invective, or vituperation?

The reason politics has become war is because Republicans of the Grover Norquist, Lee Atwater and Nixon persuasion decided it was the only way to avoid extinction. Pat Buchanan, faced with a majority which didn't care for his blue-nosed interpretation of morality, declared that cuture was also a form of warfare. ...

I see, it is all the other team's fault.

The fact that it was utterly bad manners to mention conservatism in polite company in 1955 when the National Review was founded does not count. I guess no Democrat ever played politics as 'war' until at least 2000, eh? :-)

William, I would like to dig up Atwater and hang him and then bury him again; but I do not think you can really believe it was all the fault of a few Republicans.

In fact, it looks on the surface at least that you are proving Paul's point.

In one comment, a fellow says that you should 'keep on these bastards' and I agree. I know there are hundreds of other topics worthy of your attention and talent, and you must attend to those items also; but you need to always return to the press. It the press that really needs a light shined on it, since we can hope that the innate morality of most of the public would restrain our 'elected masters' if they knew the real score because the press did its job.

Keep up the good work and remember that a man is not getting much done unless he is getting some hate mail. The senders of hate mail do not matter; they only tell you how close to the target you are getting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
la-oe-silverstein30jun30,0,1939913.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

'... Chuck Lewis, a former “60 Minutes” producer and founder of the Center for Public Integrity, once told me: “The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable.” ...'

This is a great read along the same lines as Glenn has been hammering for weeks.

WT:

I'm not a theologian, but as I understand it, faith and certainty are not the same thing. Faith that the Almighty has the universe well in hand, as expressed in phrases like fiat voluntas tua, is, if I'm not mistaken, an essential tenet of all Christian sects, and of many other religions as well. I've also been told that this is true whether or not the faithful can discern his purpose in a particular event. Even the infallibility of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith was a fairly recent development in Roman Catholicism, was it not?

When someone claims that God has told him to perform a certain act, or that he's the specific instrument of God's will, is he not flirting with blasphemy?

William, faith and knowledge are certainly not the same thing. I am sure you know that.

If you look at the history of the church of Rome, you will find a history of a religion tailor made for an empire. The murder, carnage, burning of libraries, forgeries, book burnings, destruction of great universities, and other such niceties almost wiped out the early beliefs of those called 'heretics' by the late 4th century. It may truly be said that the blackest and bloodiest records that history can show us are the attacks of the Orthodox Church upon the gnostic mystics, both 'christian' and pagan. Of course the war on the Cathars in the Middle Ages is a better example to study since the documentation is more complete.

The literalist Christian religion has supported some of the worst horrors in human history; ask the natives of the Western Hemisphere.

With that out of the way; I will say that any 'religion' that takes their 'book' to be literally true history is fundamentally flawed and will sooner or later murder those who are of another faith or even those that 'stay from the path' if they are able. Fear any man in power who believes his literalist religion; they may take to burning 'heretics' yet again. This is true of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.