Unlike Thrasher, I pretty much assume anyone who has a blog has an "axe to grind" so to speak. For that matter, I also assume so-called "journalists" have their biases and preconceptions, as do we all... generally it takes more effort to ferret them out when you read a more mainstream publication, but they are most certainly present.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people think this idea of antiseptic "objectivity" is a good thing, or even possible; in point of fact, it seems to me that mere opinion or point-of-view masquerading as unimpeachable fact has done more harm than all the opinionated screeds on the Web...

Chris Floyd is a nutjob.

Appreciate your contribution.

Anything else to add? No?

kthxbai

I would propose contempt:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/29/authoritarianism/

Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable... [h]e looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it...

I truly believe that, taking their cues from their "leaders," the authoritarian right really does not give a shit what anyone thinks that doesn't already agree with them. Thus we get slapdash hack jobs like that blog, or high-school A/V club-level fake news conferences like FEMA did last week, or Dick Cheney eating lunch while giving a speech.

They don't give a fuck, they're not open to debate, and they have unending disdain and contempt for you me, and any inconvenient facts that may get in the way of their story. So much the worse for us.

I think Glenn will be fine.

See under Walking, chewing gum.

Me. And yes.

Civilian control of the military is one of the cornerstones of a free society, as Professor Bainbridge noted in a moment of clarity before denouncing the "fever swamp" of blog comments as a threat to... well, civilian control of the military, somehow.

Due respect, sir, but if you're bored here -- um, you know, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Egypt Steve, You could have stopped there.

Now, instead of talking about intimidation of journalists by the US military, rendition of "terror" suspects, the loss of the 4th Amendment or anything interesting, we've got you, all puffed up because Glenn is engaging you directly, like you mean something.

Glenn has a pet peeve about people commenting "why are you writing about this when there are so many oter interesting issues." It's just something that, for whatever reason, chaps his ass. For me, it's people who stand in the middle of the aisle at the supermarket. Whatever. Instead of just letting it go, he usually comes and comments about it.

These are not your fifteen minutes of fame. You're just some guy whose cart is blocking the produce section.

The following comment has a good suggestion on how to encourage the military to follow its own security policies:

http://tinyurl.com/39zm7e

Time and again, people on this site refuse to achnowledge that the PNAC's plan for America has been carried out almost in its entirety by the Bush administration.

Really?

I mean, really?

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/tools.html

This strategic approach was developed by that collection of overeducated twits known as the “neoconservatives.” While Bill Clinton was in the White House, the neocons huddled at Project for a New American Century, hatching bold ideas about “benevolent global hegemony,” meaning American domination of the planet, and securing America’s status as the World’s Only Superpower — now and forever. Think old-fashioned nativism gone way proactive.

would also like to see Saudi Arabia and Syria get the bomb, just to keep you know who in line

You asked for it, buddy:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,

'Cause we love peace and motherhood.

Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,

'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,

'Cause they're on our side (I believe).

China got the bomb, but have no fears,

They can't wipe us out for at least five years.

Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they

Were gonna get one any day.

South Africa wants two, that's right:

One for the black and one for the white.

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,

Just to use on you know who.

So Israel's getting tense.

Wants one in self defense.

"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,

But just in case, we better get a bomb.

Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,

And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.

We'll try to stay serene and calm

When Alabama gets the bomb.

Who's next?

--Tom Lehrer, 1965

http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/midi/whos.mid

The way I approach it is that a blog is like a private home, and the "owner" sets the rules. IOW, everyone has the right to free speech, but spout racist bullshit in my living room and out y'go.

All that being said, I don't much care for banning and even less for deleting posts once they're up. That last in particular is very disconcerting, when one side of an argument goes in the bit bucket.

If my opinion were asked (which of course it has not been), I'd just say that, so long it's not one of those times where every other post is from David, I'd see no reason why he should be any less welcome to post here than, say, a shooter or a nazalbbfr.

$0.02

I so totally don't agree with you.

There's "understanding" in the sense of parsing words and phrases to comprehend mundane things: the bus station is over here, use a 3/8" wrench to tighten this bolt, etc. There's also "understanding" of a deeper nature, which only poetry can achieve.

It is possible you could gain some valuable insight by opening yourselves up to this form of understanding.

Alternatively, you could just scroll past.

...but maybe the good Colonel doesn't wait for happy hour.