I'd like to point out a drawback to simply getting rid of statutes of limitation, particularly when it involves an accusation like child molestation. How, exactly, can the accused defend him or herself against an inflammatory accusation that goes back decades?

Brushing aside this concern with the offhand acknowledgement that while the Catholic church "might be a tempting target for unfair suits," we need to go ahead and do it because "the victims deserve their day in court," ignores the fact that it is individuals who are being accused -- not just that villanous "deep pocketed" abstract of a Catholic church with its history of "shady dealings." Child molestation is a profoundly serious accusation that can destroy the life of a defendant even if it's determined to have been false. It's not just the victim who deserves a "day in court." The accused also deserves, not just that day in court, but a system where guilt is not presumed and the evidence presented is not so heavily reliant on bare accusation and/or so out of date that it's practically impossible to refute.

But you're using here just about every rationalization I've ever encountered for supporting an extremist: "He doesn't REALLY believe these things, he just sort of presents them like...like THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. It's all just abstract. An ABSTRACTION, see? Yeah, thats it..." "It's all about STATES RIGHTS! I mean, what could be wrong with that, leaving questions of basic rights up to the states. No harm could come from that! Right?....right?" "He wouldn't be ABLE to implement all those crazy ideas as president. I mean, he might WANT to, but he wouldn't be ABLE to, so why whould we worry?" (I used to hear this one a lot during Pat Robertson's run for president.) And of course, "He's better than those OTHER guys..."

One of the things I've feared about our current march towards fascism is the extent to which it can make other extremists seem palatable, even acceptable. It's truly depressing, Mr. Greenwald, to see you fall into the same trap that's ensnared apologists for everyone from Jesse Helms, to Pat Robertson, to Lyndon Larouch.

You point out that Niewart got Ron Paul's stance on the flagburning issue wrong, then you spend over ten paragraphs complaining about people calling Paul a "fruitcake?"

That's all you got?

Look, I don't know whether Ron Paul is crazy or not. I don't generally equate political views I dislike intensely with mental illness. But it's profoundly dangerous to underestimate the radicalism of what he espouses and the serious damage it could do. Pointing at other candidates and saying, "they espouse dangerous things too!" impresses me not one whit, and I have absolutely no interest in how sincere Paul is. The simple fact is that his vision of government is one that would leave minorities, the poor, and the sick as high and dry as they would be under the neocons.

He's not the "lesser" of two evils. He's just another evil.

"The real reason pop psych isn't relevant though, is that to reach the levels of Government where policy is made, requires a character disorder. Mature, secure, grown-ups don't have a need to be celebrated by crowds or desire the power to govern the lives of millions on a world stage."

So you figure Gandhi was motivated by nothing more than an immature desire for attention?

Interesting.

Pamela Troy

Who IS this bore?

Well, it is "fascinating" inasmuch as it parses and makes sense.

Messages devoid of meaning (and therefore, devoid of wit) are boring.

I assumed it was.

> Complaining about them, on the other hand pegs you as either an outsider or a grouch.

Oh nooooooooo! PEGGED? An OUTSIDER? Horrors! You mean I'm not wunnathagang?

Seriously, my question was based not just on my innate grouchiness (to which I will cheerfully cop), but on genuine curiosity. Is this a bot of some sort that randomly generates nonsense as some bizarre contribution to the discussion? I mean, Hell for breakfast, except for Howard Kurtz, LGF, and the folks at Free Republic, we don't have enough meaningless blather online now, do we?

for being too quick to call names.

To answer your question, I think Helen of Troy screwed me out of a name I would have preferred to "Pamela."

I do regret that. Somewhat to my own surprise, however, I find that I value being a lucid and rational boor.

Ondelette, your points are very good, but I think there are times when the statement "you aren't making sense" has to be made. Part of the reason I find Howard Kurtz and others like him infuriating is the blank-eyed fuzziness they adopt as a way of avoiding rational argument. Yes, it has frequently been my experience that "right wingers have a greater need for external certainty and dislike/fear ambiguity." It has also been my experience, however, that nonsense -- bad, imprecise, and obscure writing -- is frequently used in the service of this dislike/fear of ambiguity. George Orwell, I believe, wrote an entire essay about it.

I will apologize to bebop (whose feelings I really should have considered) but I'm afraid I'll just have to scroll past his or her messages. If I want to read mandarin prose or obscure references I'll stick to Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. When it comes to online comments, however, I prefer clarity. In fact, I consider it of vital importance in any discussion of an important issue.