. But in all my time reading punditry, I have never heard anyone devote so much time to whining about those who criticise them as GG does, without once admitting mistake, or fault, or even a hint of self reflection.

That's objectively untrue. Glenn published a correction to one of his posts in the last week. I can't speak to the other pundits you are referring to because I don't know who you read... but your judgment strikes me as pretty subjective.

One thing that's pretty much a hallmark of GG's writing is what seems to me to be a deep antipathy to the idea that you should just ignore those who attack you, be above it all. He hits back, usually hard, and with a lot of snark and sarcasm. As a big S&S fan myself, I enjoy it immensely. You may see it as "whining," but de gustibus non est disputandum.

Furthermore, I think it's demonstrably way more effective than letting your antagonists define the parameters of the discussion. Ask Dan Rather. If you can find him... I think he's on Dish TV channel 1,427,332.

I am not going to give you a new definition of a terrorist. If you forgot the conventional definition, you can open up any respectable dictionary and refresh your memory.

Oh, Calif Mike, I'm sorry. I was unclear. I wasn't asking you how you define the word terrorist... I just wanted to know how you identify one. You know, before violating his rights.

In future, I'll aspire to the laser-like clarity of your prose to avoid such misunderstandings.

You see what you are really doing here, because you are being dishonest in my opinion, is attempting to force the recognition of "differences" so minor as to be non existent by dragging people of revolutionary mindset into it.

No... "dishonest" is putting words into someone's mouth, as you do above. If I were trying to "force the recognition" of something, then I'd be doing that. In actuality, I'm doing neither.

Let's use a real example. In 2008, in the 3rd California, Bill Durston ran against Dan Lungren and lost. Take even the most cursory look at the two candidates' positions and tell me how the differences are "non-existent."

...it's hard to beat the "Rant of the Year:"

How about this, Mr. President and new administration — Why don’t you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA and at sig

I do agree with you. Sorry if my comment came across differently.

If they are only differences in rhetoric then they are, by definition, not "actual differences."

I wrote "in many cases." Would you like to address the substance of my comment, or shall we just go back to throwing shit at each other?

Actually, they'll sadly acknowledge that there isn't much difference (i.e. in terms of our elected representatives). But they'll also make the argument that Democrats will make marginally better choices benefiting the poor and disenfranchised

The question of whether supporting a major-party candidate is ever a good idea is actually an interesting one, if one wanted to engage it at a level of sufficient nuance. There are actual differences between the parties on issues of social justice, even though in many cases it's only a difference in rhetoric.

However, if you're the member of one of the groups you mentioned, it actually would make "a dime's worth of difference" if a Democrat got elected, rather than a Republican. And I feel that would be an outcome that would be applauded my the likes of a Gandhi or an MLK... regardless of how either of them might feel about those parties as presently constituted.

You are worried about the rights of the terrorists whom you consider to be innocent.

An excellent point. Calif Mike, since you are so clear-thinking on the subject, can you explain for all the readers exactly how you can conclusively identify a terrorist. It's important to know whose rights we should respect and whose we can safely ignore.

Or would you try to appease them the same way Chamberlain appeased Hitler in 1938? Do you remember that this appeasement eventually lead to the World War II?

That's a fascinating analogy. I'm sure I've never read anything like that ever before, in any medium: online, broadcast or print.

I'm confused, however. If Chamberlain had fought Germany over the anschlüss, wouldn't that have led to "the World War II," just a year earlier? I'm sure you can make this clear to me as well.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

I don't have to give any evidence for my claim. Do your own research.

Well, the Washington Post is a Moonie paper and is automaticaly right-wing, so that's no surprise.

You're thinking of the Washington Times.

Glenn's point was that the response to the Mayor was typical of media coverage in general. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?

I know you just like to drive by, take a crap in the comments section, and leave without engaging. Just in case you're feeling froggy, though, I'll try yet again:

Unions have put these autoworkers in the horrible position of getting benefits far beyond normal and reasonable levels.

Define "normal and reasonable." Use numbers, please, rather than rhetoric.

In essence they are in a $600,000 house at a $200,000 budget.

You're getting your talking points confused. This is the reason why banks are not to blame for the mortgage crisis, not why automakers are not to blame for the collapse of the auto industry.

basta ya

No trates de enseñar a un puerco a cantar, es solo un pérdida de tu tiempo... y se enfada el puerco.