Welcome back, Mr. Grieve! Yes, it's scary when you realize that in the bid to be informed, one has to work at it. If you want to really drive yourself crazy, try to watch the nightly network news, and see how inadequate it is as a means of covering world events, compared with the huge amount of information available by way of the Internet. You find stories "breaking" on network news that you've known about for years, by way of the Net.

And what's more, it's frightening to think that for a big chunk of the populace, that 22-minute nightly news is where they get their information. It's wholly inadequate to the task of covering our complicated world -- it amazes me that, pre-Internet, it was where nearly everybody got their news, along with the papers.

Even the 24-hour cable TV news (and certainly not the print newspapers) can't hope to keep up with it. Only fanatic newshounds and partisan diehards can really keep up with what's going on, and even then, only by following areas of interest. I guess that's why the Bush League has pursued their own variation of "don't ask, don't tell" with regard to news dissemination.

Tuning in definitely takes work. Glad you'll be tuned in again, though; we missed you!

I just hope the Democrats widen their lead in the Senate, to render Lieberman a footnote. Right now, he's at his political apogee, where his fickleness can be most richly rewarded -- the Democrats have to kiss his ass or he'll join the GOP and royally screw the Democrats.

But if the Democrats can widen their lead in 2008 (assuming Bush/Cheney let elections occur, still kinda iffy, the way these people operate), then Lieberman will then have little recourse but to caucus with his remaining soulmates in the GOP, since won't have that catbird seat he's occupied since he bolted from the Democrats.

The Bushies will take advantage of the Iraqi parliament's summer break by throwing out plenty more hot air on the progress in the region. In a way, they can probably use that break as an excuse for more "wait and see" with the surge, or as an excuse for why it's not working, and so on. It's all good to them, right?

But hey, Bush is working on a $20 billion military aid package for six Gulf states, including Israel. I'm sure all that military aid will make the Middle East more peaceful...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0730/p99s01-duts.html

Anyone who posts using anything other than their real name is posting anonymously (quasi-anonymously anyway as Salon and your various security agencies know who you are.

Not really; how is "Bill Owen" any more authentic than "Slackie Onassis" -- especially on the Internet? Just because you know it's your real name (or IS it? hmmm) doesn't mean anybody else does. How many "Bill Owens" are there in the country? Probably hundreds, maybe thousands (?) -- how do we know you're really you? It's all very postmodern, isn't it? :)

Mine's obviously a handle, but if I were "Janet Jones" or "Margaret Hamilton" or "Michael 'Tank' Collins" or "Dan Blanton" -- would that be any more authentic? Astroturf groups are notorious for slinging letters to the editor to newspapers posing as letters from "everyday people" -- with intent to manage impressions and opinions. Cynical, wrongful, and manipulative, in my book, but they hide behind normal names, whereas if they were "Samurai Tadpole" they'd not be able to get away with it. But in the loquacious glow of the Internet, why not have a fun or unusual handle?

If one had a real desire to subvert a forum like this, would any name really reveal that intent? No, only the words and behavior of a person would reveal that, no matter what they called themselves, whether "Rawker69" or "James Connor III" or "Goldbrickster" or "Rev. Samantha Travis" whatever else somebody would come up with -- if anything, they'd want to appear as, well, anonymous as they could, if their goal was the derail discussions and sabotage a forum. "Anonymous" is a big, big rock to hide beneath, compared with coming up with a handle that's at least reasonably memorable, for those who are disinclined to use their birth names.

What matters more than the name is the person and the ideas behind it; if somebody's got good (or interesting ideas), I don't care if their name is "Sam Hill" or "Captain Ahab" -- the ideas are what'll matter to me, the real person behind the name is the generator of the ideas. I like that. There are a number of folks on here with memorable handles whose words I love reading, and I appreciate it about them; I certainly like seeing that better than "Anonymous."

(apologies in advance to any real people whose names or handles I've accidentally used in vain)

Both of them were on CBS Nightly News tonight, referred to as former critics of the Iraq war who're now seeing progress in the wake of the surge. Pollack had a couple of headshot sound bites, and O'Hanlon had one. Are they coming out with a book or something?