One can but hope.

Whatever Glenn will be remembered for, it won't be his tedious, windy, pedestrian writing.

One could say the same of Alexander Dumas, Neil Postman, and Naomi King. Ultimately, its all subjective judgment isn't it?

On a related matter Iokkan, have any positive reviews, from outside the left-wing fringe, come to your attention yet?

No, and I'm not looking either. I prefer reading the material myself and come to my own conclusions. Something I would recommend to all others.

"Witness for example Niall Ferguson's recent defense of American imperial ventures, or the Kristoll column in question; neither are defensible on their content or merits because they have neither."

I'm both amused and puzzled by this statement, if only due to its highly subjective content.

Perhaps so. I personally take offense at using religious holidays to justify counterproductive ventures, and take even greater offense at historians advocating the establishment of new empires without offering a coherent rational for such. But that is just my own view.

Subjective apart from the rather objective matter that there is only one 'l' in Kristol.

Yes, that was a silly error.

And its one 'l' in 'Iokannan'.

"I am granting you have at least a modicum of self-awareness at how petty and small you present yourself here."

Since you read Glenn, I imagine that pettiness and smallness is a big plus in your book.

Clearly they're yours as well, given you comment here far more than I.

But if we're going to compare relative worth of authors and insights, I'd prefer someone who has a command of the facts and whose arguments actually pan out versus those who operate exclusively in a fantasyland that doesn't extend beyond US 395 in Virginia and Maryland.

How can "news" organizations refuse to address -- just completely ignore -- accusations which fundamentally indict their behavior as "journalists"?

One supposes much the same way Congress refuses to address the admitted illegal actions taken by the Bush Administration: there are minimal (if any) incentives or prompts for the current leadership of either group to actually do so.

Replacing the controlling interests of either or both groups is a long-term enterprise, something I suspect Americans still haven't fully internalized given the addiction to 'quick fixes' and stopping armeggedon before the next commercial break. How many times has the Administration invoked a scenario featuring 'Jack Bauer' to successfully silence or at least dissuade its critics?

Stories like this, disseminated ever further and wider, certainly help but alone aren't sufficient. Boycotting advertisers, running better candidates for office, deluging editors and publishers with letters and emails, refusing to play by 'established' rules, and so on are all part of this and will doubtless take some time to yield tangible results.

In short, we know what the problems are, but solutions are going to take a long time and a lot of work to accomplish. Best we understand that now and get to it.

But only just.

"One could say the same of Alexander Dumas, Neil Postman, and Naomi King. Ultimately, its all subjective judgment isn't it?"

Not really. As I've said, Glenn is a anti-Bush political agitator and activist who happens to write (though not very well). Kind of like Ann Coulter. If his books had merit beyond that - like literary merit - we'd see them well-reviewed beyond the fringe.

A political activist, perhaps. A 'anti-Bush political agitator' is pushing it. I've seen nothing in his writing to suggest his opinions haven't been formed by solid fact and experience, nor have I heard him call for any manner of extreme action on the part of us readers. Hardly his fault or ours the Bush Administration has committed illegal action upon illegal action; calling them on it is very much our civic duty.

As for whether his books have merit beyond the immediate niche they fill, that is for future generations to decide. I'll grant that at the moment their niche is modest, but you much equally grant its growing given W's ever declining popularity and stature.

"No, and I'm not looking either. I prefer reading the material myself and come to my own conclusions."

But you know you already agree with Glenn quite avidly and therefore your assessment of his arguments and conclusions will, inevitably, be skewed by that fact.

You presume my opinions are fixed and inflexible. I also at one time thought James Clavell was a brilliant writer and Thomas Hobbes could be applied to the modern era. Subsequent re-reading of both have changed my opinions on both to the negative.

That's the problem with not prejudging everything: your opinions and attitudes change with new data and reflection.

"take even greater offense at historians advocating the establishment of new empires without offering a coherent rational for such. But that is just my own view."

You can't have read Ferguson very carefully then. His prescriptions for American empire are mainly pragmatic and historical, and he's not particularly convinced of its long term validity either, as outlined in Colossus.

"Colossus" was a weak argument at best that ignores the contradiction of its central premise: that America can be a "good" empire. He's reasonably solid on broad-brush, but when one looks at the messy, empirical reality of empires (and, most importantly, the damage do its holdings) the argument collapses under the weight of its own absurdity and fantasy that such things are truly "good".

Never mind that his focus upon Iraq in recent days has become fixated upon the deceased Saddam somehow coming into power if the US departs the country as the Iraqis themselves want us to.

America conquering the world like the British attempted? No thanks, Niall.

"Clearly they're yours as well, given you comment here far more than I."

Hardly. Check out your number of posts versus mine.

Nevertheless, you are here and comment directly quite often. Or do you just prefer being the contrarian and enjoy the correction?