As to Glenn, I wouldn't mind an apology for your false characterization that I brought up your religion. It should be pretty clear to you by now that I did not, and don't think it's relevant unless you choose to discuss it. Your attack on me on that issue was about as unfounded as it gets.

Oh blow it out your ass. Someone pointed out that Glenn is Jewish, which he is, and then you gratuitously went on to say since Glenn hadn't raised it, you wouldn't discuss it either...and then proceeded to do just that in the mot insulting terms imagineable. Stating he is obviously not religious and that his Jewishness does not inform his political views, as "proven" by the fact that he doesn't bring up his ethnicity when posting.

And as he pointed out to you -- and as even this shiksa is well aware -- Jewish denotes an ethnic and cultural background, but need not imply a belief in any particular religion, including Judaism.

Beth isn't the rest of us

And moreover, some weeks ago when she wrote something that really did smack of anti-Semitism, a bunch of other commenters jumped on her about it, quite vehemently. (I recall this because *I* was ready to lay into here, but saw others had done a sufficient job of it.) But other than an anonymous here and there, I don't know anyone else here who has remotely said something anti-Semitic, and certainly not Glenn or those in his regular commentariat.

Glenn's blog does not need WinSmith to "teach" us what constitutes anti-Semitism, and what is so vile about it.

And glad Mona jumped into the fray too. Good on ya both.

Glenn's posts on the ADL have been very important, and altho I've been very busy today, from time to time I was tracking comments here, but not posting. The WinSmith creature finally got me so exasperated, however, i just let loose, potty mouth 'n all.

Between the right-wingers admonishing Glenn to "stick to gay and lesbian issues," and those such as Win who think Glenn should wear his ethnicity on his forehead, well, it gets annoying. No human being is defined by either his ethnicity or sexual orientation, and Glenn focuses on the issues for which he has great passion and an unrivaled ability to tackle -- issues that are important universally.

Sincerely,

Mona, the culturally Irish-Catholic, straight, female, grandmother, atheist, libertarian, J.D. and brunette who loves sushi but hates peas and stuffed bell peppers.

i have a developed view of this. it won't fit into a 200 word post to get lost on Salon.

Outline it. Summarize it. The lengthiest policy papers are subject to Executive Summary. You claim to have a solution, plan or whatever...well, what is it?

Still making my way through this thread and maybe this has already been addressed. But about the U.S. intercepting calls in foreign nations. I've read that especially with allies we abide by the protocols we have worked out with that nation and as they feel comfortable with vis-a-vis their laws.

I would expect Canada would want some say-so as to we on its citizens, and that it would make quite the fuss if we ignored their preferences.

re: Another obituary for irony

If you will give your permission, I'd like to reproduce that whole comment at my blog, with attribution of course.

Yeah, I am aware of Salon's copyrights, but also of fair use doctrine and of the fact that the bulk of that post was your quoting yet another source. My commentary on the Forbes article would be as short and the same point as yours, so why play games doing cosmetic re-wording?

Besides, I'm promoting the brilliance of the Salon commentariat -- they'd be fools to complain. ;)

The only thing one has to read about the idiotic, unjustified, hypocritical, and wholly manufactured reasons for the US entrance into World War One is the primary source of Robert M. La Follette's speech against it on the floor of the Senate:

Yes, I know, and LWM/anon loves baiting libertarians like you and me, and even WT -- no libertarian he -- recognizes when LWM has his anon-to-better-bait-with hat on. That brightstar person is on the libertarian fringes with his conspiracy theories, but brings on LWM's OCD where responding with endlessly recycled cut and pastes to libertarians are concerned.

I ignore him (not WT), and I highly recommend that.

I second the nomination. I also nominate bebop for poet laureate and roshi, sysprog for head of the school board, arnie for night watchman, kovie for foreign minister, and RMP for minister of defense.

And it a hard call as to whether you or Rosenberg should be 20th Century Historian for the blog.

Holly McLoughlin (sp?) should be in charge of enforcing general intellectual quality.

Naming names, I would leave some out, so I won't, but this discussion is excellent. I'd simply like to point out that the modern National Security State and military-industrial complex did not commence with Goldwater's ideas or the Reagan presidency -- or with just conservatives, at all.

For good or ill, war is the health of the state; WWII and FDR's powers accumulated at that time left a very unfortunate legacy, exploited by Truman -- the birth of the CIA (forged out of a nearly defunct WWII intel agency). In the late 40s the CIA was born, and altho some govt lawyers fretted that it was illegal as an unapproved and unfunded program via Congress, Truman simply siphoned funds from The Marhsall Plan and other sources of $$. Some wished to limit the CIA to simply gathering intel for the Executive, but others advocated: political assassinations, plying favored foreign political parties with big bucks to sway elections, and funding approved-of guerrilla mvmts. All of that was done.

Root and branch, what we are reaping now goes back many, many decades.