Joan, just wanted to let you know that the first link in your 27 March 2007 post, "Welcome to the neighborhood, Politico!" may be broken.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/03/22/edwards4/%22

Don't know if I'm the only one, but I'm getting a 404 error.

Glad to find a new blog worth reading!

-Jonathan Powers

Wow. I always enjoy Blumenthal's super-savvy analysis, but I've never been sorry that he holds his learning close to his vest. That first paragraph has got to be the single most unapproachable pastiche of bombast ever stuffed into a friendly reader's line of vision. Just because Mr. Blumenthal grasps the essentials of mid-20th century political theory doesn't mean he should inflict that understanding upon us. A little useful simplification--a difficult task at which Mr. Blumenthal excels--would seem to be in order.

Do the editors not read the best progressive bloggers on the internet? How does this crap make it through?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/bitches-brew-by-digby-as-regular.html

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

As assiduous as I usually am about reading all of your material, I would still _really_ appreciate it (and I doubt I'm the only one) if you would please unbundle your "Various Matters" posts. Just start one post for each "matter." It's more elegant, more transparent to the reader, and costs neither you nor your publisher any real trouble to do it.

Thanks!

Witch hunts were not a medieval ("Dark Ages") phenomenon; they became prevalent in Renaissance (post-1400) Europe. As the religiosity of Europe slowly ebbed, there was left a certain "explanatory" vacuum. Renaissance ecletecism meant that a multitude of explanatory paradigms (science, magic, religion, alchemy, etc. etc.) were advanced as potential successors to Christianity. Given the number of options, there was understandably a certain general anxiety about why things happened. Events which might before have been ascribed to "the will of God" might be seen, at least sometimes, as the result of some mysterious human agency. Whence, witch hunts.

Ms. Walsh,

I knew I liked Obama, but I wasn't sure why. Now that I've read Mark Shmitt's explanation, I can state my reasons with confidence. Why doesn't this guy write for you?

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

I've been a loyal reader of Unclaimed Territory not only because I sympathize with your positions, but also (more importantly) because I believe in the rhetorical power of sound argument. Your steady habit has been to pick apart the fallacious reasoning of every fool, no matter his political or professional persuasion, and it is that habit which has convinced me that your column is worth reading. I doubt that I am alone in this.

It therefore saddens me that you have descended into the demagogic use of a logical fallacy (specifically, the fallacy of converse accident--reasoning from a specific case to a general rule) in this post. You write:

I pointed out that this was not the first time [Mr. King] appeared to be reverent of John McCain... Most of this speaks for itself, but it's worth noting how often journalists' responses to criticisms contain so many of the same elements which King's email contains. They always want you to know that they never read what you write and that you're an Unserious, biased, partisan amateur..."

Your logically unjustified use of the pronoun they in order to represent all journalists as being guilty of and for Mr. King's sins reeks of frustration and not a little spite. While your takedown of Mr. King seems to me entirely justified, and his puerile response entirely worthy of mockery, this post does not mock Mr. King; rather, it goes on to vilify journalists in general. Whether or not journalists as a profession do in fact deserve such vilification (and it seems to me that your entire project is an attempt to improve journalism, not denigrate it), the bad behavior of one CNN ninny cannot justify your recklessly splashing all journalists with your venom.

Before you accuse me of not being familiar with the rest of your work, which documents the pandering stupidity of so much of our national press, consider first that I have already admitted to being a loyal reader of your column. I know what you've been about. And second, such an accusation would be a bizarre echo of Mr. King's; I can hardly imagine that you'd want to share in the ignominy of which you've found him guilty.

I am entirely sympathetic to your view that most of our current political problems devolve from problems with the 4th estate. And I agree that many (but not all!) journalists practice their craft so poorly that I am embarrassed for them on Jefferson's behalf. I am writing this because I believe firmly that your tough-minded, hard-nosed, critical approach has been, is, and will continue to be the right one. Stripping the fallacious lipstick off of a piggy argument always makes for a greater respect for truth.

You have been one of the few commentators on US journalism willing to argue with conviction, relentless research, and unyielding faith in sound argumentation that the vocation of a journalist is to tell a true story--not merely to present "opposing views," "the facts," or "analysis." Please do not sacrifice your dedication to truth in reporting on the altar of Mr. King's imbecilities. Those of us who believe passionately in a free press can ill afford the loss of your conviction.