While the gist of Greenwald's post is, I feel, spot on, and probably isn't in conflict with my comment, I think it's necessary to point out that journalists should not be compelled to reveal their sources by any government functionary such as the courts.

Clearly the media's obligation is to their readers and therefore have the ethical responsibility to expose those who would intentionally lie to the media in order to advance their agenda. But if it became acceptable for the government to compel reporters to reveal their sources for any reason, it undoubtably would be used to retaliate against whistleblowers rather than uncover liars.

The media should reveal sources when it's in their readers best interests, but only as an ethical responsibility rather than a legal one.

When are we going to learn that judging politicians by their private improprieties produces nothing but bad leaders. This is precisely the type of Republican misdirection tactic that keeps the focus off of the real issues.

I don't give a rat's ass who these people screw in private as long as it isn't the American public once elected.

For all of the rhetoric about free markets and government being the problem rather than the solution, what Reaganomics was really about was crafting policies that favored the wealthy and they in turn would use their wealth to create jobs for the rest of us. Top down economics would be a more accurate term for it.

The bailout is just more of the same. At it's heart the bailout simply clears the books so that the same people who got us into this mess have a free reign to do it all over again. Possibly there will be new regulations to control Wall Street's excesses but it's still the same top down economic model as before and you can bet that if we continue to travel down this road, whatever new regulations are enacted now will be tossed aside in the future.

...ideology still plays a role. Do we enhance our safety by trying to dominate the world and preemptively invading country's seen as a threat? Or do we instead, try to foster cooperation with other nations where possible through negotiations? These are two ideologies that while vastly different, share a common goal.

Ideologies are merely a plans of action to deal with the challenges that face us. Ideologues are those who follow an ideology even when the evidence shows them to be wrong.

You're correct that this guy acted unprofessionally and those calling him a hero are pushing it, but only an American could claim his actions gained sympathy for Bush. Nowhwere in the Middle-East (except Israel) will anyone ever feel anything but contempt for Bush.

Clearly this man was doing nothing more than expressing his overwhelming rage against a leader who has trashed his country.

Imagine how much more constructive and honest the debate over torture investigations and prosecutions for Bush officials would be if those who oppose them were just willing to candidly state the necessary assumptions underlying their views.

That would apply to virtually all of the national conversations regardless of topic. Imagine how the stimulus "debate" would play out if the opposition were candid about their motivations.

@tregibbs

"How does one seriously debate an idiot?"

And yet that appears to be our fate. Like some perverse version of Groundhog Day, we're doomed to repeat the same arguments time and again with willfully stupid people.

...how hypocritical and divorced from reality her position really is.

they do it merely to sadistically inflict pain on people while the U.S. did it for a noble reason: to obtain information about Terrorist attacks. That's really what she said: that when the U.S. did it (as opposed to Evil countries), it was for a good reason.

So Shepard isn't, in fact, merely playing stenographer as she claims journalists are supposed to do, she's injecting her own twisted value judgements into the process as well.

And as NPR's Ombudsman she's the protecter of journalistic objectivity and integrity?

You can't hide from the truth.

Are you sure about that? You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

People have said, wait: insurance companies have death panels now! Precisely. Obama would add them to Medicare, in order to trim costs on the elderly to match what presenly exists for the sub-65 insured. In the heart failure scenario, a sub-65 insured patient probably gets treated worse than someone with Medicare. Obama would even the playing field downward.

It's rare that I would bother to refute any of the ridiculous claims made by such moronic posters like resident troll Readerreader but this one is so beyond stupid that it deserves special attention.

Setting aside Readerreader's admission that healthcare for the "sub-65" crowd presently sucks, the notion that Obama and the Democrats are looking to limit healthcare for those on Medicare is mind-bogglingly absurd. It was the Democrats that gave us Medicare, with no help from the Republicans. Republicans have fought Medicare from its inception and continue to this day to defund it and punch holes in its coverage.

If you would just pull your head out of your ass for a minute you'd see the goal of healthcare reform is to raise the sub-65 crowd to the level of Medicare rather than the other way around.

A liberal is a centrist.

No, a centrist is a centrist.

You can argue just how far to the left a liberal is or isn't, but unlike centrism, liberalism is an actual coherent ideology.

Centrism on the other hand is the misguided belief that the truth can somehow be found by triangulating a position between the perceived extremes.