Glenn (and other letter writers here) have already done a great job refuting this douchebags "Oh yeah, well YOU'RE a doodie-head!" childish insults and rants. And one letter-writer was correct to say that this little goldmine did hit all of the tactics of the right-wing nutbag argument playbook. However it did touch on one point that I think showcases why our political and jounalistic institutions are in the gutter. BOYlan dismisses Glenn as merely "stating his opinion." This is something I've noticed on political news shows a lot. There are no "facts." Everything nowadays is all ASSumed to be mere opinion. This is what tricks many journalistic outlets to feel that they have to have both "sides" of a story to be "fair and balanced" without making a clear distinction to what the facts are. Conservative blogs and Fox News are masters at this. Don't you remember their slogan, "We report, you decide." In other words YOU decide what's "real" and "truthful" based on what you believe (with our "spin" pointing you in the right direction.) This is all based on the premise that news is all subjective and objective, agreed-upon facts doesn't exist.

These issues are nothing more then a "he said, she said" to neocons and their followers and sycophants. Getting back to the e-mail, I suspect this is why many of these idiots who criticize Glenn almost NEVER actually respond to any evidence he presentes to support his point. Because in addition to Iraq, BOYlan is also conduction the War on Facts (TM).

I think we have reached that Network moment...we should be "mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." We've been bullied by stupidity and bogotry for too long. Time to take the country back.

Yes if there is one thing them uppity Christians are known for is their "bogotry." Although this quote did prove that stupidity isn't limited to religious and THAT'S certainly a boost against "bogotry." Get a brain, morans! (You have to read Wonkette on a regular basis to get that reference.)

Romney sucks though. I wish people would realize that seperation of church and state actually protects BOTH from negatively influencing each other.

In what context does religion equate to "humility, love, and open-mindedness"?

Probably the context that where people actually do that.

Amen, brother!

First of all, I think it's a little specious to lump Gawker in with Perez and company. The big difference with Gawker and Gawker-adjacent sites is that they don't take this stuff seriously. Part of the annoyance of other gossip hounds is not merely the fact that, say, "Britney without panties" is reported on at all. It's that it's reported on with the breathless ardor and urgency of a nuclear war declaration (up to and inlcuding ACTUAL media.) Gawker treats these stories (and even themselves) with the ridicule and absurd whimsey they deserve. Even the much-maligned "Gawker Stalker" is used ironically. (Indeed, part of the point of the "Jimmy Kimmel incident" is that the system isn't even all that reliable anyway.) The whole point is that unlike the Perez/In Touch Weekly/TMZ brigade Gawker media DOESN'T worship celebrity. In fact their calvacade of sites is

Also, someone dared to drag poor John Lennon into this mix, ignoring that Lennon was famous as an ARTIST. The Britney/Lindsay/Paris squad are "celebrities." They're famous PRECISELY because they engage in eccentric behavior.

Maybe it was too long (and rambling) but that jaw-dropping unsolicitated letter you got a few months back from that general counts as a "highlight" of 2007 inanity.

And I would nominate Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi's pissy, huffy acriminous lament that she couldn't lock up those god damn dirty protesting hippies (i.e her base) in jail with the homeless like they belong.

Also as much bittersweet amusement as I have reading the hilariously stupid quotes from these sorry ass people, I was wondering if you might also like to include some inspiring illuminating quotes by genuine "patriots" that causes awe as oppose to dread. Dodd and Feingold's speeches against telcom immunity, or the Boston Globe's editor after Charlie Savage won the Pulitzer are some examples.

Let me just say that that was a very moving and beautiful post, Salon Fan, and I agree. What I get out of that letter is that there was a lot more to Bhutto's life then just "what she meant for George W. Bush" or "how this affects America." That type of view also focuses mostly on how "WE" feel about Bhutto rather then how her people, the Pakistani's feel about her, which honestly, at this point I think is more important. I thank you for reminding us of that fact, Salon Fan.

To be fair though, that's the feeling for today, while we're still in mourning (and I suspect THAT'S what you're really asking for, Salon Fan. Just a period of mourning, right?) Eventually the impact to the US and around the world of this tragedy does need to be properly assessed. After all, one thing this country is learning is that things that happen in other parts of the world DOES affect us more the we initially might think. So how Bhutto's death is interrelated with our (and other countries) global policies IS an important question in the long run. Just not now, when we should be mourning an important and influencial world leader.