Way back when, I entered a post with this title:

"Learn the difference between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested'"

The very next comment was from flyover52, titled:

"Why are the grammar police always wrong?"

Could be a coincidence, but if not I will point out that the difference between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' is not a matter of grammar, except in the very broadest sense, relating to understanding the definitions of the words we use.

They are two different words with two different meanings.

To be disinterested is to be impartial, like a judge.

To be uninterested is to not be interested. As in this passage, from the article under discussion:

The other players, once disinterested bystanders, begin to stir toward the edge of their seats. Some stand to get a better perspective on the upcoming catastrophe.

The writer is not trying to tell us that the bystanders were impartial and then partial. He is telling is that the bystanders were not interested and then interested.

See Fowler's discussion. He actually makes a case that 'disinterested' can be used for 'uninterested' but ultimately comes down in favor of using 'uninterested' when the writer intends to convey a lack of interest.

The very best one could say would be that there is some controversy. To suggest that this is merely grammar and grammar police are always wrong, is always wrong.

I am a big Allen Barra fan. Based on this interview I am going to order this book.

I had never heard of the guy but after listening to his bloviating nonsense I had to wonder if Maher is now having a tough time booking panelists. If this is the best right winger he could get, the show must be in trouble.

Anyone who still believes that Barack Obama is a progressive is hereby invited to keep my score when next I compete in a golf tournament. You'll just trust what I tell you, right?

Obama has revealed himself to be just another power-hungry politician. His relationship with Rahm tells you most of what you need to know about what kind of man Obama is.

Read the Obama DOJ court filings to learn the rest.

I agree, no need to confuse him with a nice guy like Beck.

How about Jeebie, as in Heebie Jeebie.

Oh, if Jeebie himself is reading this, and doesn't get it, try your initials. GB.

Sirota is taking a generic observation about a correlation between our economy and violence and applying it to a specific situation. And we know enough about that specific situation to say, with some confidence, that what Sirota is talking about simply does not apply.

I am not sure even the generic observation is true, but for the sake of argument let us say it is true. But since we know the winner-take-all economy has nothing to do with Harris and Klebold, Sirota's argument becomes the equivalent of saying that car wrecks are a predictable byproduct of drunk driving and that we might therefore expect more car wrecks like the one that was caused by a distracted cell phone user.

Really, whatever one makes of the critique of the effect that our economy has upon violence in American society, linking it with Columbine is just loopy.

It is nonsense. A federal prosecutor could empanel a grand jury. We don't need a special prosecutor. We need a prosecutor. We need to investigate these crimes and arrest and charge all the guilty parties.

No special treatment.

Under what constitution do people get to commit serious felonies (as opposed to lie about their private sex lives) and completely skate? No investigations, no prosecutions - nothing.

I understand that some people are opposed to the rule of law. Some people grumble that it is just retribution and so on.

Total bullshit. The crimes of the past eight years include torture, lying to congress, politicizing the Justice Department, spying on Americans without a warrant - just to start.

Clearly, serious felonies have been repeatedly committed. It is ludicrous to claim that these crimes should not be investigated and, where warranted, prosecuted. That is what happens in countries ruled by law.

If the American public has the stomach for investigating Clinton to the point where alleged birthmarks on his penis become a topic in congress, they better have the stomach to investigate real crimes.

This is not a choice. This is what we have to do.

More and more people are becoming disenchanted with religion. The Pew Research Center has recently published a comprehensive study of religious views in this country. One key finding:

When asked whether a list of specific reasons were important factors in their decision to become unaffiliated, a significant proportion of those who have become unaffiliated after being raised in a religion say they simply do not believe in God or the religious teachings of most religions. About four-in-ten former Catholics and former Protestants who are now unaffiliated say this is an important reason they became unaffiliated.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=410

Sooner or later (the sooner the better) politicians will not feel compelled to pander to Bronze Age myths.

If the images are as horrid and graphic as described, their release will create such a world-wide shitstorm that prosecutions will follow.

For the Repugs: The Lying Shitbird Party. If we are going to be accurate, that is.

Joe are you trying to con us or have you been conned?

Obama is Bush/Cheney with a more eloquent mouth. Watch what he does, not what he says.