"Glenn still produces the most provocative and interesting blog on the internet and he is correct far more often than not. He just lacks . . . grace."

I'm curious what your definition of "grace" is, because it seems to me showing too much deference or "grace" to opinions, logic, ideology, and viewpoints that are undeserving is part and parcel of why we are at this moment in American history.

Should we all show "grace" to the concept of separate but equal?

Should we all show "grace" to the concept of torture of innocents?

Should we all show "grace" to the subtle/not so subtle bigotry of religious intolerance?

Should we all show "grace" to people who make up their own facts and reality and then rationalize their political actions based upon that made up reality?

Should we all show "grace" to . . . I think you get my point.

When you show "grace" or deference to an opinion, viewpoint or belief that is, oh I don't know bigoted, irrational, deluded, or unnecessarily violent, you legitimize that opinion and provide the necessary cover for people to continue to cling to it. It provides "amoral cover" and prevents self-analysis.

While I agree that GG is the one of the best most provocative writers on the tubes, I'm personally tired of catering to the lowest common denominator in this country and empathize with his ocassional scorn directed at those who seem incapable of principaled reason based moral thought. Our leaders seem to fear telling the most fearful and intolerant in our society that they are simply wrong and that they have nothing to fear. Why not sell instead of legitimize?

Why are we the only industrialized nation on earth that revels in its own stupidity, fear, greed, thinly veiled dark ages bigotry, and unrepentent consumerism? I don't think our allies the Dutch, Swedes, Fins, Brits, Aussies, French, Austrians, Japanese et al do. Why do we continue to believe in ahistorical American myths of exceptionalism simply because they comprise our cultural tradition? How can we plot a course forward unless we honestly analyze our past? This country has shown so much "grace" and deference to the intolerable that we are where we are.

I'm looking for a little more courage in confronting the status quo. We'll see if PE Obama's "assimilate them all strategery" works but I have serious doubts. PE Obama was not my first pick for the Dem nomination, but I came around because he seemed to have the capacity to be a good salesman. So far I've seen him filling up his rolodex but doing no selling. I guess time will tell but I really don't think he should ever be beyond well reasoned principaled criticism and I certainly don't care that it pisses of the conservative fundies who'll stomp their feet, hold their breath and wail and gnash their teeth until the second coming one way or the other. There is no compromise with true believers, they can only be marginalized. When they start worrying as much about feeding and sheltering the homeless and poor as they do about abortion and gay marriage I might give them the benefit of the doubt. But until then they are clearly part of the problem and not the solution to what ails America. Their last great accomplishment was over 40 years ago in my humble opinion with the CRA and it certainly wasn't all of them being on the right side of history and justice. Since then--zip. Nothing more than big steps backwards IMHO.

on about how important "motivation" is this debate. "Teh I'm protectin' da people" argument. What was the poster's name, Conway?

Without being a "Glen dittohead" . . . another great column GG.

I'm starting to think there is something pathologically wrong with the mental processes of those in main stream media. Either that or it's calculated propoganda as pure as the driven snow. Which we are getting in abundance here in the great NW. Go figure. What happened to the golfing upside of global warming? I was banking on bananas in December and now this.

BTW, how bout those Wasilla meth heads? She shouldn'ta done it, Levi's just a boy.

You did notice which "end" government was first and foremost meant to ensure didn't you . . . "justice".

The common defence and national security, at least in the last 30 years, are not synonymous. Your notions of "national security" or "common defence" doesn't mean what the founders intended it to mean. Your understanding is fundamentally "imperial" while the founders used those words to countenance the concept of "unified and coordinated action to counter invasion by sovereign forces". Read history much?

This is why the "teh war on terra" is a scam. Terrorists acts are first and foremost an international criminal problem not a military one. But god knows there's little money to be made walking that path and little political hay to be stacked. Painstaking investigations and prosecutions don't make for interesting TV. Shock and awe does. Lots of gadgets, big explosions, good guys vs. bad. America's caricature of morality and our place in the world. Made for television.

The bedwetter's favorite refrain, "All Hail the Commander in Chief". The founders were right . . . we were destined to botch self-governance. Too little trust in the law, too much "protect me daddy" insecurity. Then again when the law is corrupted to the point it allows some to be above it, I'm not sure it deserves the respect it was intended.

Now go and do as Shooter suggests--flaunt the law by breaking the "butter laws" so we can all by equally hypocritical. Heh.