By any analysis grounded in morality, torture belongs at the top of the list of immoral behaviors along with murder and rape. That's why it's illegal, of course, and how a moron like Stephanopolous can lead a discussion on whether torture works - as if its practicality trumps its immorality - is just inexplicable to me.

I mean, the fact he can find anyone to take the side of torture in a debate is among the most dismaying attributes of the contemporary American character. Combine that with, say, the incredible stupidity and inanity of the health care "debate" and I wonder why the fuck I'm even living in this country anymore.

What is it about America that's reversed our sociological and moral climb out of the moral abyss? The water? TV? I don't know, but I see no sign of improvement on the horizon.

Am I mistaken? Doesn't Brad DeLong have it wrong? What I read in that column is his opinion that if the House refuses to impeach Nixon it would be a disaster. Republicans would be able to prove their case that Democrats screwed up, Democratic voters would take revenge on Democrats who voted against impeachment, all hell would break loose.

I'm not arguing that Broder isn't a contemptible epitome of contemporary Beltway journalist. I have no idea where Broder stood on impeachment (though given his history I could take a wild guess). Rather, I'm wondering if DeLong has misinterpreted that column and thus erred in calling Broder a liar - and DeLong's interpretation is being broadcast all over the Internet to the point that if you try to search for "Broder on Nixon impeachment," DeLong's piece is almost all you get.

He reads only his editorial pages. So of course he would sanction such a hypocritical editorial.

Really, his blindness - and the Post editorship's in general - is simply amazing. In a sickeningly hilarious kind of way. I'm glad you read the Post for us - I long ago gave up in despair.

One thing I'm curious about, though: How does Hiatt keep his job?

The Atlantic's ranking is really mental masturbation. The subjectivity is a clue, as is the impossibility of a truly rational, evidence-based ranking of this kind. One has to wonder at the diversion of scarce journalistic resources to a mindless task like this one.

Exhibit A:

Influence: A survey of more than 250 Washington insiders – members of Congress, national media figures, and political insiders – in which respondents rank-ordered the commentators who most influence their own thinking.

Hmmm..."insiders"...do I detect an immediate bias in this effort at a rational ranking?

But what they found is still dismaying. Just looking at the Top 10 is dismaying. Yes, a Nobel prize-winner heads the list, but don't get your hopes up. Seven of the Top 10 are an immediate discouragement, if these truly are the people influencing the "insiders." Any "insider" influenced by sociopaths like Rove, Limbaugh and Beck shouldn't be inside of anything but a mental institution; and third-rate minds like Friedman, Brooks and Krauthammer are nothing to be proud of for any "insider" listing those who influence his/her thinking - pardon, "thinking."

And who are these "insiders," anyway? Somehow the vast majority of the American public doesn't seem to follow their thinking - pardon again, "thinking" - given that, for example, a public option in health care remains the favorite option, as is withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not to overlook your own ranking, which seems to me too low given that your positions on a variety of issues resonate more clearly with the American majority than most on this list - but as with all such lists, this one is an exercise in futility and a simple-minded pandering to list-lovers, who probably comprise a vast majority of "insiders."

The most telling consequence of this warranted anger and mistrust of government and especially of the political class - politicians, "journalists," lobbyists - is found in the willingness, even desire, of a great many people to believe things that are provably false.

Whether the immediate causes of these mistaken beliefs are misinformation (blame the media), ignorance (blame the schools and the media) or manipulation (by those of the political class who have something to gain thereby), people who believe such things (Obama was born in Kenya, for example) figure that even if they're not true, they might be, or the truth is probably similar to the lie, or what is false now might become true later, after the backroom deals are done and everybody is paid off and journalists' careers are made.

The point is, more and more people don't trust their leaders and opinion-makers, and for good reason. I personally would never hold up a sign asking "Where's the birth certificate?", but I might hold a sign asking Obama, whom I supported with money and a vote, "What happened to Mr. Transparency?" or asking David Gregory or Chuck Todd, "Whose political ass did you kiss today?".

As Glenn and Frank Rich have pointed out, it is this sense of deep betrayal that Glenn Beck has, in his own disordered way, tapped into and exploited. It's as if he's the contemporary version of Bob Dylan asking, "You know something's happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"

No it won't. I X Salon out. Go back in.

I get the need for ads, and Glenn rocks, but this one wouldn't close when I told it to, instead expanded to fill the page, and took its own sweet time loading. It's offensive and I resent it. Screw that. The Salon ads are getting so intrusive that I've greatly reduced the number of times I go to the site.