...Not a bad analogy. The Stewards were put in place to execute the laws of the kingdom but eventually became kings in all but name, sort of like our presidents.

Wasn't in a commenter here in UT this week or last who pointed out that the Brits kept their monarchs, but stripped them of power while we Yanks ditched the monarchy but have vested the president with kingly powers? I found that point very insightful.

Having a toothless king maybe serves as a reminder of how dangerous kings can be when they have some teeth. By keeping the symbol of power, the Brits perhaps remain cognizant of the substance of power, while we, in ditching the symbol, believe ourselves automatically immune to the substance.

Ironic that folks whose religion was founded by a torture victim would support torture. They must be thinking, "But Jesus was tortured, and there's no way those Moslems are better'n Jesus." Wait Scratch that.

They're just not thinking.

"I would like to see glen [sic] greenwald in a situation where his child and wife were held captive, and about to be sodomized, have their fingers cut off, sodomized some more, and then slowly beheaded."

I bet you would. I bet you'd go through a whole box of tissues while you watched it over and over, you sick fuck.

"YES! Its a bit like fencing, where one side is using the foil, and the other is using a poleaxe."

Yeah - but if you're quick enough you can get under-and-up before they can get that poleaxe swung around. Oh, and use a saber, not a foil. ;-)

Thanks for the reply.

Of course, you would know who's who when it comes to posters, and I'm glad that you let critical views stand, even poorly articulated ones - especially the poorly articulated one. As I mentioned, I marvel at your ability to take the snide potshots I see from some of the posters here and let them keep posting.

Alright, enough apple shining. Back to lurk mode.

I hear you, re: not feeding trolls, and I think your analogy to vandalism is apt - and I honestly seeking an answer. But whether the intent behind the question is honest or not, I think it's of value to answer the question itself.

As a former teacher, I had plenty of students whose idea of a discussion or debate was shouting and put-downs. They weren't acting in bad faith because they hadn't been taught otherwise (and it was my job to teach them that 'otherwise'). Admittedly, it's more forgivable in a 15 year old than in someone's who's 25 or 55 and who ought to know better. But when I think about the fact that there's a whole generation of adults who have been mis-educated by the right wing movement into thinking that abuse, invective, name calling, etc. are perfectly valid means of persuasion, it seems like it would be in everyone's interest to explain every now and again why certain modes of "debate" are not valid and not persuasive.

There are dishonest actors out there like SR Electro James T. Robot III, and bluesquishy may be one of them, but there are also people out there who are really trying to find the truth and trying to connect with others to make the world a better place, but they don't have the tools to do it. I think it's only fair to give them a chance, even if it means falling into some trolls trap from time to time.

And to be completely truthful, there's a perverse, slow-down-at-the-wreck aspect to my curiosity too. When I see some of the posts Glenn lets stand - the ones that full of homophobic and antisemitic abuse directed directly at him - I wonder about just where Glenn's line is ... and what's on the other side of it.

Glenn:

Would you mind responding to bluesquishy regarding "outright censorship," presumably the deletion of certain posts and the banning of certain posters?

It's possible that bluesquishy doesn't understand the difference between abusive posts and critical posts. Besides it would be interesting to see the general guidelines articulated by you personally along with a snippet or two of the kind of post that gets deleted or the kind of poster that gets banned.

This would be especially useful because one of the canards the Right likes to throw around is that the Left are just as censorious as they.

~djmagaro

From what I've heard/read, Stormtroopers (the white-armored dudes in Episodes 4-6) are draftees while Clonetroopers (the white-armored dudes from Episodes 2-3) are, well, clones who've been genetically engineered and programmed to be killers.

FOr a fun send-up of henchmen, check out the comic "Empowered" (published by Dark Horse) where the heroine's boyfriend - "Thugboy" - is a former henchman who led a gang of henchmen who's graft was ripping off the dim-witted, would-be super-villains who hired them.

You remember correctly. I ought not have ascribed that view to Krugman. At best, had I the time for further elaboration, I should have explained (and cited) how the sentiment is not uncommon among Keynesian economists and how Krugman probably would agree with the overall sentiment.