If you're going to rightfully give Tupac hell for the lousy misogynist stuff he did, you should also point out that John Lennon wrote "Run for your Life".

So many places I've read journalists complain about the Sun storyline because "It's not nuanced enough" or "The higherups at the paper are shown as being one dimensional, negative characters" and, really, it makes me wonder if that criticism isn't more than a little self interested.

Have you people ever watched the Wire? The Baltimore police establishment is represented by people like Burrell, Rawls and Valchek. The political establishment is Clay Davis, Mayor Royce and the city council President. Business establishment? Krychek. Legal establishment? Levy. Are any of those characters represented as three dimensional characters with various shades of grey to their morality and decision making? Or are they all entirely self serving, corrupt examples of everything that's wrong with people in powerful positions?

The Wire had plenty of moustache twirling moments and I can't help but be a little skeptical when the people who gush about the show get a little put off when that same treatment is given to their shop.

If, as is implied here, there is some sort of double standard on the part of the United States in it's views towards Israel then where is the other half of it? Where is the country that the United States considered an ally/debtor/casual acquaintance that was dealing with an "indigenous" population in a heavy handed manner that the US started cutting ties, financial and diplomatic, with? Great Britain and the IRA? Canada and the FLQ? The Chinese and the Tibetans? Russia and the Chechnyans?

It seems like there is a single and solitary standard the United States has when it comes to these issues and it's one that is entirely consistent with the manner in which the United States acted when faced with the same problem. The standard is do what you want to put the bastards down. The only double standard here seems to be amongst the people who could give two craps about the peoples previously mentioned and focus so intently on the Palestinians and their plight. AIPAC, really, is just the other side of the coin to the thousands of journalists who descended on China this summer and came back with "Boy, that Michael Phelps sure can swim, can't he?" before wringing their hands about those awful Israelis.

...but they are the ones you have to make peace with"

The addendum being, I suppose, unless you so utterly and completely obliterate them that their complaints are relegated to history books and you go around complaining about the way other people deal with their enemies.

The United States of America: Genocide free since, uh, whenever it was we stopped.

Tailwind wrote: "If anyone in this world were doing what they are doing to defenseless people. We would be condemning them, cutting off all aid for their criminal regime and denouncing them to the world."

Really? What about China? Has anyone done that to China over their treatment of the Tibetans? Or did the world just attend their giant party?