See how you feel about the following edit of your post. I'm not trying to be insulting or gratuitously provocative, but it seems to me that the answer to your non-rhetorical question has a lot to do with whose ox, as it were, is being gored.

It seems obvious that the IDF violated the right to free speech of many of the Palestinian civilians assembled. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate danger from Hamas fighters who had joined the protests.

This does bring up interesting issues that would be worth discussing. Just what should the IDF have done to protect them and to protect civilians from being caught up in any violence? I'm not saying that the IDF were right, but one way to try to figure out how to solve problems is to put yourself in the place first of the people you perceive to be causing them. Just what should the IDF have done? We're all adults, we know that every protest is about 90% great people, and about ten percent violent jerks who want to destroy thngs. And that's a pretty loud and active ten percent. What should the IDF have done instead? This isn't a rhetorical question. If you can't answer that question, then critique, beyond initial rage, isn't very valid.

If the same questions aren't equally applicable, then why not? Exactly why?

No, he hasnt.

Fair points, all. Again, I wasn't trying to condescend or trivialize... just making the point that it's easier to come up with justifications when you don't have skin in the game.

When was the last time there was a protest in the U.S. where participants "were armed, with the intent of causing harm to civilians?" It seems to me that this myth of the "violent protest" has been trotted out so often that even you, at some level, seem to be buying it. Has anyone - other than protesters I mean - actually been hurt in a protest lately? (That's a real question, BTW.)

For what it's worth, I couldn't agree with you more that the time of the public protest has come and gone. It's preaching to the choir and turning off everybody else, counterproductive as hell, and dangerous to the participants besides.

almost too much to bear.

Buck up, tough guy:

About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting.

http://nprstations.org/conferences/treasurers_report_may_2005.pdf

It's the latte-swilling Islamophiles and their allies at the nonprofits and, um, corporate board rooms that are supporting this commie propaganda.

The public fisc is safe.

Again, when was the last time there was a protest in the U.S. where the protest participants hurt anyone?

Why is it that the police felt they needed to preemptively arrest people - to protect the citizens of Minneapolis from what?

...but not real fun, if you catch my drift and I know you do.

Ramadan mubarak, all y'all.

the impulse to shield ourselves from others' suffering cannot simply be an American failing

Did the author say that in the book, or in the interview, at all? All that was referred to was that it is "particularly hard" for Americans, which seems fairly uncontroversial.

The writer's reaction might be seen as a proof of that point...

You need to use a separate <blockquote> </blockquote> pair for each paragraph. The comment field tag parser sucks like that, unfortunately.

Yes, you are correct.

<br> works.
No need to use a nuclear bomb where a hammer will do.

But I'm kind of a bull in a china shop with tags.

One of us is misreading the post.

I don't see the statement that they are being fired, simply that they are no longer hosting their signature shows on MSNBC.

My understanding is that they're just not moderating the political coverage. They keep Hardball and Countdown. I would imagine they are protected by contract.

KO & CM were backed by GE execs when they were helping to prevent HRC from winning the primary, but removed at the first opportunity after the primaries had been decided.

Wouldn't "the first opportunity" have been before the convention? I mean, I don't know if you're trying to, but you certainly haven't proven your case.

Love,

Paul

(blue '05 GTI 1.8T)

"Ashy" is just a term to describe dry skin.

How rude. Tsk. Off-topic Clinton (Obama, Biden) reference. Heh.

Thank you for saying that, and I hope you continue saying so.

As for me, I've pretty much ceased reading "liberal/progressive" blogs, primarily out of disgust with commenters who seem to have been waiting for a chance to parade their misogyny safely - as if tolerance of women is predicated on them having the proper political attitudes.

All commenters are, obviously, not equal - I haven't lessened my respect for many of you regulars, and I think you know who you are - but I've been sufficiently revolted by the spectacle to withdraw more.

At my sig is a link to a relevant post by my favorite author on the interwebtubes. I hope you'll read, and maybe even throw the author a shekel or two.

I didn't say anything about Glenn, nor did ethics_professor.

If you read my comment and Arthur's post and that's all you got out of it, I'm very sorry.

suggesting that, because she's female, she can't adequately handle being challenged on the issues surrounding her history as mayor and governor (of which there are many, and more coming to light every day) is sexist

I'd certainly agree.

Has anyone actually done that?