On Rudy's crisis skills... One might think rule one would be to adequately plan for them.

NY Times; http://tinyurl.com/27wa8a

THREATS AND RESPONSES: ASSESSMENT; Contradicting Other Evidence, Giuliani Says Firefighters Heard Order to Evacuate

By JIM DWYER

Published: May 20, 2004

...For all the power of his voice and stature, however, Mr. Giuliani's account must compete with a substantial and diverse body of evidence that flatly contradicts much of what he and his aides say happened that day, particularly on matters that could be seen as reflecting on the performance of his administration.

On perhaps the most painful of these, the loss of at least 121 firefighters in the north tower, Mr. Giuliani suggested that they stayed inside the trade center because they were busy rescuing civilians -- never mentioning that they could not hear warnings from police helicopters, that many of them never learned the south tower had collapsed or that they were having serious problems staying in touch with their own commanders....

re: Your response to Golden Boy's comments on the Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia thread. Glenn seems to have two letter writers who, although they have similar names, have very different points of view. I think you may have confused Golden Boy with Orbitboy?

Apologies. I did misunderstand.

Don't defend Anonymust. DHK220 was willing to give the appearance of an honest discussion, but it was pretty thin. DHK wanted to argue in the abstract, not in the specifics. S/he didn't respond to me either. Although his/her comments were littered with the words deterrence and credible threat it was clear that the only aspects DHK was interested in was the threat and delivery of force; totally disinterested in the other half of the game theoretic premise (ie; reward). As has been demonstrated repeatedly, Bush et al had no intentions of negotiating in good faith with Iraq, and has demonstrated none in negotiating with Iran. The last throw-away was DHK's defense of playing in crazy gear, couched in terms of uncertainty. 'Course, as soon as you toss crazy-gear down on the table you've pretty much taken out a neon advert that you ain't got nothin'. Why DHK wants to try and rehabilitate Tom Friedman is known only to DHK.

I'm late to this party, but I'm not sure your exhortation to the folks here doesn't perhaps tell me more about your disappointment in Brian Williams than your disappointment in Glenn's commenters. I really have no opinion of Brian Williams as my teevee viewing time per month can be measured as a fraction of an hour. But, apparently, Brian Williams is important to you.

Grim, ghastly, abhorrent, a travesty...

This administration and much of the military command genuinely mocks us.

...the more convoluted the argument leading to this conclusion, the more stridently in needs to be expressed and the more violently it needs to be defended...

Well said. It's a tough discussion to have with the right wing. Because, as you note, the response is to ramp up the volume until its ear-splitting and bone rattling. To even describe it in anything less than apocalyptic terms is to fail to do it justice. I just tried, and I can't.

You prompted memory. I wish I could remember the title of the book. I read something a number of years ago which suggested long, stable marriages were problematic for capitalism. Fractured households meant more people in the labor force, more construction, more washers, dryers, and refrigerators. More carpet, tile, and linoleum. More faucets, light fixtures, and shower curtains. In short, more individual households meant more goods were needed, produced, purchased, and consumed. All of which contributes to GNP. Apparently, planned obsolescence works for marriages as well as machinery.

playing the refs: I hadn't thought of it in that way but, Oh!, is it apt. That's a superb analogy.

They believe in belief.: Simply true. When it comes to conservative rhetoric, I begin backing away the minute I hear the words, "I believe..." It's not an artifact of conversation, it is an article of faith. Where I might use the words, "I believe the point being made was...." as a qualified assertion, the extreme (and, not so extreme) right wing speaker means, "I believe and, therefore, it is axiomatically true."

Good catch. I had that vague, nagging memory in the back of my mind. As in, "Gee, I wonder if he's the one who said, ...?" Thanks for taking the time to verify it.

I'm inclined to say thanks for reading them so I don't have to... but, that post is more than just a little unnerving.

I think it's just been a weird day; chronicled by Think Progress:

Tom DeLay wants to "bitch slap" Paul Krugman:

DeLay: ‘I’d like to bitch-slap’ Paul Krugman.

http://tinyurl.com/2x9s3r

Time magazine considered hiring Karl Rove and thought better of it:

Time rejected Rove as a columnist.

http://tinyurl.com/39et95

And, then there's the military that are being asked to pay back some of their signing bonuses, Freedom Watch marketing war with Iran, etc, etc.

Just when you think it couldn't get more nuts than it is... [insert the theme from Jaws here.]

Paraphrasing Atrios, I wonder what "fresh hell" awaits tomorrow.

I saw your appeal on the other thread, looked it up, nosed around, and decided to submit it to an atmospheric soak. I just don't have a hard and fast feeling. Some aspects seem unique, some seem utterly familiar. But there is one thing that bugs me. IIRC, there was an element of exclusivity; as in, "will only be released at this site - not available at Amazon..."

I don't have a hard and fast thought about it. My intention was to go back and look again later to see if my second impression was different than my first. I'm all for "pamphleteers." That is a valid, honorable, and well established part of the American political tradition. But, I'm alert to hucksterism, too.

Short answer: I'm just not sure what to think.