GG's second item about Iran and the Matthews-Buchanan discussion is wholly about this phenomenon

I think its only recently we as a country have actually started to recognize this dimension of our interaction with the rest of the world. Certainly our own history has plenty of examples to it, such as the Boxer Rebellion in China and the 'Banana Wars' in Central America in the early half of last century. The British Empire saw almost non-stop, low-intensity conflicts across its breadth during the 1800s, culminating in the Boer War.

Whether that's thanks to universal literacy or simply because the interconnectedness of economic and social systems is now better understood I don't know. From experience I've seen how sociology and anthropology, the two disciplines most capable of identifying and analyzing such things, have often descended into outright victimization of non-Western cultures by way of explanation. Common sense perception as Glenn approaches things seems more a rarity than the rule.

There's also the consideration that armaments have become significantly more destructive now, and so the normally minimal damage such reactions might lead to has increased considerably. The 9/11 attacks, which severe, could well have proved far more devastating had the Towers not collapsed like they did if any of the hijacked airliners crashed in the cities rather than their chosen targets.

Doubtless there will be even graver consequences of the current stupidity the Bush Administration has started in Iraq. One can only hope to survive it.

I also agree with Fraud Guy that outright mockery is the best response to Ahmadinejad, though I would expand that to pretty much every speech or address given by the Bush Administration and any of the principles of the Religious Right.

It would, if nothing else, give the rest of us a good laugh.

I'd say that the marginalization of the netroots is nearly complete.

Thanks for the laugh this morning, rentboy. You may go now.

For people who chose for their careers to write about political issues, don't they have any interest at all in covering more substantive matters?

That's the real question, istn' it? Precisely how much genuine 'reporting' have we seen over the last decade of actual issues?

There are any number of fairly common sense if inadequate possibilities for this: simple laziness, the disengaged 'clubhouse' atmosphere that keeps the DC establishment afloat, corporate control of media, and political partisanship on the part of reporters themselves.

More's the pity.

Sorry, it's not true.

Via http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13041.html#more-13041

LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. They can’t even — if — the next guy that calls here, I’m gonna ask him: Why should we pull — what is the imperative for pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out? They can’t — I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what –

LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.

(bolding mine)

Limbaugh said it. Accept it, embrace it, make it your own, shooter.

'Cause quite frankly none of us want it, or you, anywhere near us.

It's the most simplistic form of a black/white mode of "reasoning" known, one that was rarely seen outside of a group of 8-year-olds until the Bush-following faction took over our political dialogue.

So, too, is critical reasoning and debate, as exemplified by tiberius (who should stick to pedastry) and shooter242 (who just plain needs a lobotomy).

Irony and reason and argument are dead. But the Divine Comedy goes on.

Yes, it would be a wicked and just irony if indeed the Republic was saved by the very thugs and Know-Nuthins who have tried to wreck it. And one is left to wonder how long Klein and his ilk would hold their current line if and when the White House changes hands.

One also wonders if these idiots actually understand what it is they're advocating, but that's a separate issue entirely. Shooter242, tiberius and the rest here don't, but they can be excused as they don't live on Earth with the rest of us anyway.

...anyone care to lay odds that the resulting Bill will (a) be worth anything, and (b) it will actually be signed into law?

...at least the sort we live in now would actually be venerated by the major voices on the public airwaves?

Have the better angels of our nature all fled for the hills for good? Is this the best we can expect from our country now?

And if so, what's next? Televised executions? Public book burnings? Pogroms?

Is there some question here as to whether that's illegal?

One marvels at the almost superhuman effort the commentator puts into appearing ignorant and innocent. One truly marvels.

One also marvels at the social dynamics of a pack of common rats, who would be far more welcome to the dinner table than said commentator. Likely better behaved as well, given the commentator's state of origin.

Incumbent Democrats, that is. We don't dare allow even a single elephant candidate gain even a single seat at this point.

If and when this "amnesty" is signed into law, will the only remedy left be to turn out every supporter of it in both Houses? Is such a groundswell even possible in this day and age?