I can't remember the last time I read an essay so loaded with scorn.

I dunno... "scorn" is in the eye of the beholder, but I personally don't have to go back any further than Thursday, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:24 EDT, when Glenn posted an entry containing this scorn-dripping passage:

Pearlstein -- and so many other bailout cheerleaders -- scorns those same concerns as grounded in stupidity and ignorance when they come from the ugly, loudmouth, teeming, insubordinate masses who refuse to obediently bear the massive debt being tossed on their backs.

Glenn is often scornful. Also sarcastic, bitchy and cutting. It is his style. In my humble opinion, him changing that style in some outer-directed attempt to deny critics 'ammunition about how unhinged we all are' would be a futile task.

I personally would like to see less bloodless analysis and more outrage, anger and scorn. Evil things are afoot, heinous acts committed in our name and with our tax dollars. Tom Paine was not a polite guy, nor was Martin Luther King... even the Lamb of God didn't mince words, for Christ's sake.

We are, IMHO, suffering from a scorn deficit, a recession of outrage...

I think that the problem with Glenn and a lot of other smart people who are independents or on the left is that they fail to balance their finger-pointing with introspection.

You seem to be saying that Glenn is engaging in hypocrisy, doing the same thing he is accusing right-wingers are doing. If so, can you provide some specific example, and help us understand how it is the same thing?

If not... what is your point, exactly?

he always retorts the "liberal media" claims by showing how the media is actually biased to the RIGHT

Does he? Do you have examples of him doing so, or are you satisfied to merely assert it?

the left (key point here) believes that the media is biased toward the right

Who is "the left?" Do all people you designate as "left" monolithically believe "that the media is biased toward the right," and how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Similarly, we on the left often fuel our actions based upon rage.

Do "we?" How often is "often?" More frequently than "seldom," but not as much as "always?"

the tendency to see yourself as persecuted, and to lash out with rage against your opponents, is NOT limited to the "right." It is, in fact, a human, "inbuilt" character flaw that we are ALL susceptible to, if we don't remain vigilant.

This is a statement so broad that I can't disagree with. For it to mean anything in the context of your post, however, you would have to make a case that there is a fundamental equivalency between pundits on the right and those on the left.

Just asserting that it exists and making vague generalizations is not making a case. It's just handwaving.

The reason people make the bias claim isn't to make a factual assertion. No, we make these kinds of claims because they fuel our persecution fantasies.

As a wise man once said: whaddaya mean "we," white man?

what seems "reasonable" (a conspiracy of epic proportions!) isn't reasonable at all.

Anyone here alleging a "conspiracy of epic proportions?" Show of hands?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence that you're really interested in engaging on this issue. It seems like you'd rather just make assertion after assertion.

Hope you enjoyed your lunch, anyway...

my point is that you don't have to be on the "right" (or even perceive yourself that way) to have a persecution complex or to lash out.

If that's your point, we have no disagreement.

My point is that I don't think anyone asserted that you "have to be on the "right" (or even perceive yourself that way) to have a persecution complex or to lash out."

Isn't it obvious? How else would anonymoose get to see his most heartfelt desires brought to fruition: nuclear war in Iran and martial law at home?

You can disagree with their views all you want, but the fact that someone has different priorities than you doesn't make them dumb and irrational and you smart and rational.

I am not one who thinks there is a problem with partisanship qua partisanship, à la Broder. At the same time, I hate the culture war and how it divides Americans who have much in common, in terms of economic issues, civil rights etc.

Yeah, there's narrowness and stupidity all around us, but there's also honest disagreements, and people just trying to live their lives. I'd like it if we could all (also talking to myself here) remember that more.

</kumbaya>

A smarter man than I once quipped: "Zwei Dinge sind unendlich: Das Universum und die menschliche Dummheit. Aber beim Universum bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher." (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.)

I'd call that "clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."

Guess that puts Salon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1465 and 2.

We're used to seeing "gh" together in English, much more than we are used to seeing "dh." But it bugs me too... not leat because I came to understand that "ghandi" is a Hindi word for "dick." May just be urban legend, but it still irritates me...

Tiberius is just mailing it in. Please don't give him the attention he wants until he tries harder.

Sincerely,

Paul Daniel Ash

Co-Chair of the Society for Better Trolls

So Glenn can't even make a post decrying anti-semitism without you accusing him of anti-semitism?

Can't you take up whittling or something? Chess? Don't you even get bored by you?