the bigger problem is not the trolls but the regulars here—those who often have smart things to say and who agree with Glenn—who engage the trolls long past the point of reasonable discussion, start their own little pissing contests among themselves...

As someone who sometimes disagrees with Glenn, it's nice to see I'm off the hook! LOL

I hope I've been wise enough not to engage in pissing contests, but I do admit that I relish a good zinger, and the occasional pointed comment. I've certainly engaged in back and forth with one or two other commenters on occasion knowing full well the rest of the community could care less. But it was fun, and often useful for me (and hopefully my adversaries as well).

I think a thread based comment section could solve a lot of this kind of thing. Not interested in a pissing match? No need to explore that particular thread, and it does not detract from being able to browse other comments and lines of discussion. And the brawlers (or simply the 2-3 commenters who actually care about the thread) can discuss/argue/piss away at length without disrupting the rest of the forum.

And so many other important issues would be derailed if Obama didn't do these compromising things, like creating a high quality nationwide health insurance.

This is a matter of priorities, I suppose. I happen to support the basic thrust of what Obama's health care reform ideas.

But health care lags far behind the civil liberties issue in importance. Put simply, I'd rather be free and worried about getting sick than be a healthy slave, at the mercy of the whim of the state.

irritated but insightful left-libertarian

Please be careful not to hurt your arm patting yourself on the back, Adnoto.

FWIW, I'm happy having you around. You do manage to spice things up.

One more time: the factual claims I made about the photos (regarding to their subject matter and what they depict) don't require me to have seen them. They are statements about which all parties in these litigations -- including ones who have seen them -- do not dispute and, in fact, affirm. There is no dispute about that from anyone.

I understand the impulse to respond - I've done it myself in the past, even when I know better - but it would appear you're not getting through to Salty.

Unreal. It has nothing to do with patting myself on the back. It has to do with what is true here. You choose to ignore the truth of what I write in favor of chastising me for for what you perceive to be my huge ego. The willingness to ignore that which is staring us all in the face has reached absurdity.

No need to get cranky.

You really DO seem to have a very high opinion of yourself though. I suppose that's better than the alternative.

In any event, my previous comment was meant to be lighthearted. If you can't tell from my earlier posts, I feel a bit whimsical today.

This is old hat.

Others seem to appreciate these articles, but I'm just sick of another article saying how politicians and our system in general is corrupted.

Of course it is. It always has been, although perhaps there is a difference in degree these days. There is nothing to be done about it either. People should know this by now.

Our society is heading towards "war socialism".

Since we've got a big and bad military, we'll use it. We'll use it to ensure access to fossil fuel and other resources around the globe as supplies dwindle. And we'll use it as a sponge to soak up some of the unemployed workers who will no longer be able to find gainful employment as the economy continues to contract. To redirect their anger from their own government to foreign enemies.

The contracting economy will be the trigger for the transformation to a socialist society. Politicians generally don't stay in power when there is suffering among the masses. So our government will institute more and more social programs to help folks who lose their jobs, or suffer large income losses. They'll do this to avoid social unrest and revolution.

That is our future in a nutshell - perpetual war, government breadlines, and a continually eroding standard of living.

Could Obama Tilt the War Juggernaut Toward Peace?

No.

The advocates of hopelessness may be right.

Sadly, we are.

It seems to me that in order to have a long term escalate of this war, there must be more public support for it.

Why? Even though the majority of the electorate is already against escalation, that is exactly the policy under consideration. Opposition might be widespread, but it isn't fierce. People oppose it, but simply don't care enough to take to the streets, to raise a ruckus.

And as Glenn's article points out, those in power have very big vested interests in seeing the war continue, or escalate.

Isn't a massive fear campaign a prerequisite?

No, but even so, the fear campaign has already been waged by the Bush/Cheney gang.

I figure either Obama's advisors are very stupid or else Obama wants to shift this thing toward peace.

Who knows? I suspect a different scenario, however - his advisors are sharp guys, but they are reacting to the incentives and pressures on people in their position. Those pressures dictate, at the very least, keeping the status quo, and might very well include sending more troops.

What's good for you and me isn't necessarily good for Obama and/or Congress.