I have always had mixed feelings about "outing." On the one hand, it is--obviously--a horrific breech of privacy, one that I am sure the nominal "outers" themselves would not contenance should the shoe be on the proveriable other foot. But on the other hand, with people in positions of power, who make policy decisions that adversely affect the gay and lesbian community, while themselves staying safely closeted, I have a hard time feeling their pain when they are outed.

But this guy: he's just a self-serving, self-aggrandizing jerk. He's an ass. A parasite who makes his living on the misfortune of others. His high-handed and spectacularly disingenuous attempt to align himself with a civil rights agenda is simply absurd. Let us hope he is quickly and thoroughly kicked to the curb of pop-culture discourse, and has to make an honest living washing cars or flipping burgers or some such, rather than trashing the lives of other folks.

Um, what was the point of this?

It was moderately clever, mildly amusing, and somewhat diverting, but really, what was the point? To give Kamiya a forum to vent some pent-up hostility? To take up some web space because its holiday season, and there's fewer contributors cranking out material? Because Joan Walsh, Tim Grieve, Walter Shapiro, Michael Scherer et alia are already on vacation, and poor Gary has to pick up the slack?

Bush is clueless, Cheney is evil and manipulative, Rice is a clueless syncophant; this is news?

I'm sorry; I just don't get the point. Kamiya and Salon can both do better.

Yes, of course Speaker Pelosi (take that, Republicans!) should support a Bill of Rights for Congressional minority members. The recent illness of Sen. Tim Johnson should make it clear to even the most knuckle-headed partisan that the line between minority and majority status is extremely thin. It is only enlightened self-interest that Pelosi push such a bill. The Democratic majority could vanish overnight; it behooves Democrats to plan for that, and do their best to rig things so that Republicans are held in check when, as is inevitable, they are back in power again.

Of course, there is no reason to use the Republican's bill. Pelosi should just dust off her old bill and use that, and let 'em fight it out in committee. I mean, why on Earth trust these Republicans at this point? And there's also no hurry; let them twist in the wind for a few weeks or months, and see how they like it. They've only had a few weeks of humble pie; I know they're probably choking on it, but tough darts. After what they've put this country through, they need a lesson they won't soon forget.

Andrew, I'm confused: how will you organize your personal life so that it is like Wal-Mart's new "flex-time" system? The only thing I can think of is that you won't write anything--nothing at all--unless Joan Walsh sends you an e-mail or an IM saying, "OK, Andrew; we need one of your patented How the World Works columns. In 15 minutes. Get cracking." Or maybe Joan IMs you and says, "Andrew O'Hehir is sick; I need you to give me a capsule review of these five independent films by 3:30pm, or you're fired." And you have to be in front of the computer all day long, from 6am until 6pm, on the off-chance that Joan IMs or emails you. And you don't get paid for sitting in front of the computer waiting. And if Joan IMs you, and you happen to be on the can, and don't get back to her in 15 minutes because you had too much cheese with your pasta for lunch, you get fired, and she has Rebecca Traister (who is *also* sitting in front of *her* computer from 6am to 6pm, waiting) write the reviews.

Is that what you're suggesting? That kind of environment? Somehow, it doesn't sound like that much fun to me. (Nor do I think Joan would go for it; she doesn't seem the type.) Because otherwise, I'm not seeing how exactly you can organize your personal life to be "a little bit more like Wal-Mart."

I guess I must be missing something obvious.

Sigh.

No, Kamiya didn't mention Israel, but we did get the following:

o) "the vengeful ethos of the Old Testament"

o) "the implacable Old Testament Father"

o) "Revenge is a universal impulse, as old as humanity. It is enshrined in the lex talionis, the notion of "an eye for an eye" espoused by the Code of Hammurabi (written circa 1760 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia, a land that is now putting that precept to dreadful uses) and the later Mosaic Law of Judaism."

I am not a rabbi, and so it would be arrogant for me to attempt to educate Mr. Kamiya. But Gary, seriously: I urge you to speak with a rabbi or two, so that you can be disabused of the canards above. (Hint: Jews don't believe that a lost eye means we should poke the other guy's eye out.) I don't know about other readers of that "vengeful Old Testament" (we call it the Torah 'round here), but I personally get tired of this "Old Testament=mean God; New Testament=good God" dichotomy. You're capable of better, sir. And the statements you make above yield implications that are, to a Jew, well, distasteful to say the least.