Whenever I read one of these media assessments from Glenn, I think of this phrase from Carl Becker's history of the Enlightenment. Here a blog post from 2004 tells why the idea of a climate of opinion has fallen out of fashion with historians:

"Well, one reason is that the metaphor itself is faulty. It implies that opinions can be disembodied, that intellectual 'worldviews' somehow float above the heads of historical actors like a fog or a layer of ozone. It implies, too, that we can extrapolate the 'climate' of an entire period in history merely from the writings of especially visible thinkers.... The successive arrivals of social and cultural history have rightly cast doubt on the idea that we can infer things about an era's 'world pattern' from the writings of a few elites. Finally, historians today probably feel that the climatological metaphor is too structuralist and naturalistic. You can't change the weather, after all, and speaking of ideas as a 'climate' makes it seem as though culture can be objectified and made independent of human agency."

http://modeforcaleb.blogspot.com/2004/09/climates-of-opinion.html

Glenn doesn't posit himself as a historian, but as I read his analyses the climate of opinion still seems a valid metaphor. And if I may stretch the metaphor a bit, the climate we're dealing with is a bit like California in October, dominated by dry, hot, disorienting Santa Ana winds, carrying with them the constant threat of instant conflagration.

I just happen to finish the book last night and found it a highly invigorating read. Every chapter seriously calls into question some aspect or another of child rearing that's dominated our thinking and behavior on the subject for the past 30 years. That's good. And the inevitable push-back against it will be good too. And let me do my little part on the push-back here. The book is heavily (overwhelmingly) focused on academic studies. This is a particular weakness of the chapter on race (which really should be read in context by anyone who plans on forming a sound opinion about it...I'm looking at you oh so young and callow conservative). I think a fair assessment of the generations that have come of age under our heightened racial sensitivity would have to conclude that kids today are generally more tolerant and accepting of racial diversity (as well as sexual) than previous generations. The reason for that has less to do with academic studies and political correctness than it has to do with the striking diversity of our pop culture--music, TV, sports, literature. As with sex, kids don't really need mom and dad to lead them to an understanding and acceptance of racial differences. The culture is doing the job regardless.

Joan, you really should send Welch this link for Glenn's column today:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/11/politico/index.html

There are two big issues here:

One, the delicacy of language issue, which is the phony fallback position for any George Will-like dullard who can't properly employ liberally colorful language to make passionate political points.

Two, (and I know some such folks) those benighted fools who really do not understand racism...just do not comprehend it at all. I believe your friend Welch really believes his Obama/Snoop link is not just a mere pop cultural reference, but is in fact a shout-out to his homey Snoop.

Yes, I'd say dumb white guy it is.

Seems like every other week here at Salon, we're debating whether "we" should be forgiving someone (Michael Vick, Joe Wilson, Serena, etc). From the various comments it seems "we" really can't reach a consensus on forgiving anyone, so maybe we should just dissolve "our" Council on Forgiveness Dispensation, and go back to the freewheeling days of yesteryear when we were free to simply damn the behavior of people we hate and accept the behavior of people we like.

Re: "The remark is going to make it at least a little bit harder for those complaining that Obama is some rabid race warrior trying to impose a New Black Order on the country."

Really, Tom? Really? If you think bigotry is trumped by authenticity, then you don't know shit about bigotry, man.

When Obama instructs Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate him.

We're tumbling down the rabbit hole with alacrity, folks.

Re: "Burns employs one of the most overused character-cheat devices -- the internal monologue, heard as voiceover narration -- to frequently hilarious effect."

Grrr. Having toyed around with a screenwriting career in Hollywood, I know that internal monologue heard as voiceover narration is one of the most overused producer-cheat devices known to writers. In their never-ending desperate attempt to control the creative process, which they barely understand, Hollywood producers and their minions in the story editing departments love to point to "No internal monologue as voiceover narration" as one of their foremost cider house rules. It's as arbitrary as b.s. goes of course. There isn't an aesthetic or marketing assessment anywhere that suggests in any way that "internal monologue heard as voiceover narration" harms the quality or commercial success of a film. In fact a list of films that do that very thing--right off the top of my head--suggests the opposite:

A Christmas Story

Goodfellas

Stand By Me

Usual Suspects

Snatch

Year of Living Dangerously

Blade Runner

The Gods Must Be Crazy

Shawshank Redemption

Moulin Rouge

It's a knee-jerk and thoroughly superficial critique of screenwriting that serves no one but story editors, film school instructors and movie critics with a handy default fault they can hang their pointy little hats on. I'd say that any writer who employs a device to "frequently hilarious effect" should not be chided for engaging in cheap character development tricks.

I just read that your in-house nutbag Camille endorsed the birther movement on NPR today. If this is not the straw that breaks the back of your irrational support for this thoroughly unhinged maniac, nothing will. May God save Salon from your liberal vanity.