Your whole post was based on the premise that the War On (some) Drugs is right and proper. It's not your fault, we have grown up in that climate and know nothing different.

No, it was not. If I have a religion, it is ending the drug "war." (Did you read the link to my post about prison and the drug war at Glenn's old blog site?) And I'll bet I know more about that abomination than you do, and have been in the trenches fighting against it most of my adult life; I'm 51. But if we are going to continue to imprison non-violent drug offenders, a minimal improvement would be to not incarcerate them with depraved and violent offenders.

I'm not going to get into specifics, but you could not come from my family without having intimate knowledge of snake pits like Creedmoor, psychiatric barbarism, as well as the shortcomings of more contemporary insurance policies and the community mental health system. You also would know that these issues preceded the Reagan presidency.

Nabblfuckiwt is along-time troll. He believes 85-90% of what he says, but also is an attention-seeking neocon fanatic who will go over-the-top eagerly hoping to be engaged. I have long ignored him as do many others, and I highly recommend that course.

S/he or it is trying to make blacks look loony, bigoted and stoopidly devoid of reasoning skills. I suggest ignoring Thrasher.

I already wrote, torture is torture is torture.

When we discuss torture why should we avoid discussing the torture that goes on in our own "justice" system [in prisons]?

Torture which is condoned not only by the President and Vice President but by practically every politician in America.

I know why domestic torture goes almost entirely unremarked upon, it is a bipartisan issue, an issue on which both liberals and conservatives agree for the most part.

And that is the horror of it, the ubiquitousness of the support for such a foul policy.

There is no reasonable or moral counter to it. S/he is entirely correct.

I don't always agree with you, but as a Greenwald reader since he began blogging, I not only appreciate and approve of his decision to give you a guest spot here, I enjoy your writing. You are a calm and reasonable blogger, and the issues on which you focus -- often pertaining to gay equality -- are very important, even if I'm not on board with every solution you endorse.

Don't let the cretins get you down.

I don't really understand why people are piling on the guy who has shown support for LGBT issues generally, simply because a singer-- someone who will not be making policy for President Obama, and is certainly not his spokesperson-- SANG A SONG at an Obama event.

I see. And you would, of course, feel it was just some folks "singing songs" if Hillary, Edwards or Mitt invited the successful and popular Prussian Blue lasses to appear and entertain at one their campaign events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_(duo)

I hold zero expertise in IT matters, headers, routing & etc. But these two things I do know:

(1) The author of today's Boylan email knew for a FACT that Boylan neither gave, nor had Glenn requested, permission to publish Boylan's older email exchanges with Glenn. (An issue Glenn did not address in his publication of the older emails.)

(2) Boylan's astonishing lack of interest in who was using his email addy and using a CENTCOM account to speak for him is most telling. If the colonel did not author today's email than there is either or both of a profound security breach or someone is sending nasty emails under the colonel's name. He ought to be distressed as well as livid, unless, of course, he knows he actually wrote the supposedly fake email at issue.

Be not concerned. It is book-related.

When he first began blogging at the old UT, Glenn was hellbent on never deleting, much less banning, anyone. I opined he would come to change his mind, as I had seen happen at several blogs of consequence, because various individuals -- and ideology was frequently not the primary issue -- ruin and overtake every single thread with their myriad fixations.

This is privately owned space. If I have a dinner party in my home and the date an acquaintance brings along starts repeatedly and shrilly ranting about the stupidity of everyone there, and how the space aliens/Communists/libertarians/Democrats/blacks or whomever are taking over the world to nefarious ends, and the dinner conversation cannot continue comfortably due to this one obsessed individual, I will be asking him/her to leave.

That is the sensible reasoning behind Glenn's very light-handed moderation policies.

i am not a proponent of free expression to the right of said date to be disruptive, but maybe he/she does have something to say.

Indeed s/he may have. And say, and say, and say yet again -- anywhere they want except my place if I deem it the right course of action is to bar them from my home. If the declarant is destroying the civil exchange of views in my home, they are out the door. Online the tolerance level is much higher than at one's dinner party, but the principle is the same.

I don't want folks avoiding my invitations to dinner because they know I allow angry and obsessed individuals to berate the others and destroy civil interaction. My invitees would then stop accepting the invitations. Similarly, Glenn has an interest in not allowing a few to destroy the integrity of his comments section and thereby run the risk of driving off the more intelligent and balanced commenters.

I'd have to file no such lawsuit, because "Borat" and I would have been mixing it up pretty badly, and if he continued, he'd be out my door.