No, LWM, stop the disparaging remarks. Juan Cole knows what he is talking about, and you do not. Most people here probably read Juan Cole every day. You need to.

Mike Sulzer - Do you actually know anybody outside of your own neighborhood? Most Iranians are more rational than you.

Irrationality is part of the definition of religious fundamentalism. Or, are you a creationist physicist? As for the rational Iranians, are they running the country? No?

The next time you try to sound smart, pick a point that doesn't come off as dumb. Tsk.

Actually, Iran is run by rational people at some levels. So is the US, in a different way. If you comprehend what you read here, you know I am not a creationist. You might be surprised to find out that Iran has scientists, even women scientists. Certainly the social environment there is not what I would like it to be, or what many Iranians would like. But you might reconsider Paul's point about people being essentially the same everywhere. Not that there is no range of individualism, but that you find people with similar ideas and beliefs in all countries. Who do you think I would rather have dinner with: you or a fellow Iranian scientist?

PS: Incidentally, isn't it possible that Shooter and Proximity are two forks of the same tongue?

I do not think so, but certainly the phrase "best of all possible worlds" is relevant in both cases.

Nobody is expecting you to invest in Salon. On the other hand, the free market system does not require that one attack things that do not make a profit.

Oh really? Perhaps you can show me where John King promised that every word he exchanges with McCain would be hard-hitting, adversial, and intensively challenging? That no softballs would be allowed? And where he swore that any hint of cordiality would be quoshed?

That is not the standard for a good interview that Glenn is implicitly asking for. You made that up, based somewhat on what some others have said.

All professions have standards. It is wrong to say that these are set entirely by the free market. The press has done better in the past, and even then without entirely meeting reasonable standards.

That was no reply. John King's standard has nothing to do with anything. Professional standards do not derive from one poor example of a reporter.

Well then, point me to the codified professional standard he violated.

Summary and references here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

When you summarized PW's "position" earlier, you did not seem to understand why he believes he did not lose the argument, and could never lose it. His fundamental belief is that there is no standard for journalists other than making money. One branch of the modern extreme right applies this standard to nearly everything else as well. I find this frightening, and I think it is necessary to understand why people feel this way.

Glenn, I did not expect this post. I agree with you completely, of course, although I am not sure everyone on the left who posts here does. So it might be an interesting discussion.

I think laws that would involve the police even more with internal discipline problems in schools are a really bad idea. An important part of a free society is the ability to handle problems within the context where they occur. As you involve the police in more and more, you have, well, a police state.

begin{JK} You clearly know very little about journalism. But credibility matters.

........

That way, even on days that I don't consider my best, or anywhere close, I can look myself in the mirror and know I tried to be fair and didn't call into question someone's credibility just for sport, or because I like seeing my name on a website or my face on TV.

end{JK}

You hurt his credibility. That is right, YOU hurt HIS credibility. He did not do it himself, and certainly CNN played no role.

This has been said before, but it is worth repeating. Publicity counts, and the campaigns get it. There are various ways to attempt to get a question to one of the pres. candidates. Every now and then it works. If enough of those questions are about telecom immunity and FISA, some will get through. Romney in particular has declared himself "not-Washington", and so he will avoid questions like this if possible because he is "Washington" on things like this. Do not let him.

(That was the day the water main broke.)

......

The president directed me and my company to step on the rights of all my fellow citizens in direct violation of a law passed just to prevent this, and my company received millions of dollars for "helping out".

............

The telecoms encourage everyone to believe that those two things are the same. Troll alert!

You spend a ridiculous amount of space railing against Rockefeller and others with his view - without detailing what it is that the telecoms apparently did -

You want the entire history of this repeated every day? Do a little research, and you might find you are on the wrong side. A lot of what you said is factually incorrect, but do not expect anyone here to care what you think.