After all this time, during the primary and the race during the general election, I never knew or read about what Ayers was protesting.

After watching him on GMA I now know it was the Vietnam War.

The bombs they set were never intended to hurt any human being.

They were set to make an emphatic protest to the government about the insanity of pursuing that ridiculous, politically-motivated war.

This revelation puts a whole new and different perspective on him being called a "terrorist." At least as far as I am concerned.

I protested against that war and the Iraq War and would have protested the war against the native Americans if I could have.

I am a Korean War veteran and never agreed with that war either. I thought is was political and unfair even when I was young and stupid.

I think that Camile Paglia is a nonsensical writer. Just prattle!

What a refreshing post!

After reading the absolute crap put forth by Camille Paglia and then the supportive crap written by the trolls.

Thanks a lot for that dose of sanity!

Thanks for the excellent article, not that I didn't realize the truth of it before.

It just flabbergasts me that the neocons that wrote incessantly for the need for the war today still garner such respect and are still supported by so many fans. I think about Kristol and Krauthammmer, et al along with Friedman. They still remain so powerful despite many years of gross, inhumane, badly-executed judgment calls. FOX News stills dominates Cable News. Hannity rules!

What is wrong with life? The politicians and media that brought about the war are very successful. The "masters of the universe" who have caused this economic debacle are getting paid billions to solve the problem they created. Yet the poor worker gets no break from the elitists that make the rules.

I am thankful for you and the liberal blogs and Maddow and Olberman. But it has to feel like you're spitting into the wind.

Lastly, I am distraught over Obama's appointments and his centrist ways and his apparent decision to forgive the war criminals.

C'est la vie!

You did a wonderful job on Rachel's show this evening. I sincerely hope you start getting a lot more exposure and I suspect she is smart enough to have you on as a regular.

I never miss reading your articles and they are always so informative to me. Without your reporting I think I would be hopelessly adrift and uninformed.

I noted that you were also mentioned in congress also today. The world is getting to know you. Congratulations and thanks a lot!

For what it's worth your point of view relative irony and satire makes, by far, the most sense to me.

Some salient points from your post:

"Like everything, satire has it place. But like everything, done to excess, or done poorly, it's just a distraction, at best, adding nothing and subtracting something (namely, the belief that there's a point in talking more seriously about the topic at hand)."

"But when used to attack those whom one disagrees with or dislikes, or just for the hell of it, or used to draw attention to oneself and demonstrate one's imagined superiority, or to demonstrate one's indifference and cynicism, or just disrupt a discussion just for the hell of it, because one has nothing serious to contribute to it (which appropriate satire does, as opposed to ad hom or disruptive satire), or one just doesn't feel like trying, well, some may disagree, but I think that this form of "satire" is generally unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwelcome, more the mark of an insecure antisocial adolescent (or whatever actual age), than of someone who wants to participate in a discussion, whether "seriously" or ironically, and who values the opinions or others, even ones they disagree with."

I read GG every day and then search the comments for postings by you or Walt-Cap or Ondolette. I wish Salon had an ignore functionality so that I could ignore the posters who are not of interest to me.

Sure, Bebopper or Goodcelery or Klytus or the other regulars have something to offer to each other in their attempts at socializing, being clever and edgy, but it's not relevant to me, nor worth the time to evaluate their intent or interactions.

I prefer reading a column in the NY Times, say by Kristol or Krugman or Fish and then reading the comments. The comments many times are better than the column (especially relative to Fish or Kristol). These comments almost always address the subject in the column and there is no social interaction involved.

I read Kristol purposely so that I can read the comments associated with the column.

He is so outrageous and 95% of the people who comment tell him so, in sometimes a very funny way. I get a real kick out the process.

I often wonder how he reacts to the comments and whether he will continue writing the column under such circumstances.

That interview with Moyers was just about the most intriguing and enlightening discussion I have viewed in a long time.

I had forgotten that human beings can make sense, and the way and the manner in which you expressed yourself was extraordinarily effective.

I indeed find it remarkable in the age of the internet that I have the opportunity to congratulate you on a wonderful and informative positing of what should be done by the president-elect when he takes office.

I sense that Obama seeks out people who are outstanding and I hope he gets the chance to view this interview.

There is not one word that you said that I would disagree with.

Thanks a lot!

Heh!