I am SOOOO guilty of reading what I want to get out of the post, into what Glenn wrote.

Upon reading the comments, I understand that much of GG's commentary related to the less than even-handed application of the (in this case) abortion litmus test. Classic GG nail the hypocrisy type stuff.

I latched on to the part at the end, about broadening the discussion beyond the narrow range of acceptable political discourse. Here is where Glenn reminds me a lot of Chomsky. (That, and the fact that he, as Chomsky often does, seems to argue from "first principles" and see where that leads).

So I'm thinking the discussion OUGHT to be about whether or not the US and A should pull back from global hegemony/delusions of empire. The parts where I agree w/ Paul, you see.

But then those more knowledgable than myself broaden the discussion to include Paul's economic and church/state positions. The parts where I disagree with Paul.

Guess I'll just sit back, watch, and learn.

"some of my best thinking is done when I'm busy trying to figure out exactly WHY I think someone is an complete idiot."

I couldn't agree more. Bears repeating.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the operative term in that phrase is probably SOME. Formulating a cogent argument against a well-articulated position with which I disagree can compel critical thinking and self-assessment on my part.

Easily dismissing the inarticualte, prevaricating, disingenuous spew of GWB, his ilk, and certain of the resident gadflies here... not so much.

@HRH

Nadelmann supplies you ammo again today.

http://www.alternet.org/story/71033/?page=entire

This must be where we differ, for when I (to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty) look into a mirror, it reflects what I choose it to, neither more, nor less.

Have fun everybody. And 'bop, thanks.

"the car was so dizzy"

Make a me laugh!

Since I bad-mouthed the majority quisling just yesterday for failing to take any steps to block recess appointments over the holidays...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004959.php

I officially eat my words.

Bye.

Lest people find a joke in there, somewhere. 8')

MERRY SOLSTICE!

The political process obviously (to me, anyway)entails satisficing as opposed to optimization behavior. This post lays that out beautifully.

I'll have to head over to Ezra's to see what got you so steamed. Did you adress him provately, only to have him ignoy/rebuff?

What's that Jon Stewart says? Oh, SNAP!

Helluva takedown.

How much more explicit can the guy (GG)be?

A broader discussion of certain of the issues RP has made an explicit part of his candidacy (i.e. a refutation of American hegemony) would be incredibly beneficial.

This does not serve as an endorsement for his myriad of other positions.

I'm sorry RP's position on abortion (which so many willfuly misstate)sticks in your craw. See the preceding paragraph.

I abhor the War on Terror, and the War on Some Drugs, and the War on Planet Earth that is Republican environmental policy. My preferred candidate will likely never be nominated.

So I satisfice. Get used to it.

Since some of the usual suspects are here talking about our host, here're my $0.02...

I left a comment the other day about GG's penchant for pointing out hypocrisy. It seems he often argues the necessity for consistency in the application of standards. Principles must be applied across the board. It's like Chomsky once said. Something to the effect of, you either admit the rules apply equally as well to you as they do to everybody else, or you drop the charade and admit you're a Nazi.

So you're left with the development of your own set of First Principles. That's hard for an individual to do, let alone a political system. Are you a Federalist, do you believe in the Unitary Executive? What?

Just because I believe it's a "good outcome" for the Feds to be able to mandate across the board compliance w/, f'rinstance, environmental regulations(I'm clearly speaking in the hypothetical here) am I OK w/ the possible ramifications vis a vis, say, drug laws? WTF ARE my first principles?

GG has me thinking about this. Consequently, I couldn't care less whether GG is a libertarian, or a liberal, or what. I enjoy reading his stuff because I like the way he thinks. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, in fact, I'd appreciate the opportunity to argue with him some day.

In the meantime, I'll listen, and learn, and try not to be too abusive when people don't adress my pet topic, or come too close to goring my sacred cow.

G'night all.

...the link to the GWB vid in (5)?

Just finished the Horton article. GG has a way a pointing out the stuff that makes me literally sick to my stomach to think about.

If you haven't read GG's article in the Conservative, go do so.

Pop quiz: Who said THIS?

What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

That doughy pantload stuff actually made me toss my cookies. Of course, it might have been from laughing at the Sadly, NO! takedown. Glenn's first link there is EXCELLENT!

Merry Xmas Eve everyone. I'm off to grease the wheels of the economy.

A: RUDY! (Read GG's piece)