Something I forgot to add in my earlier post.

You criticize, some, less charitable than myself, might say "attack", Glenn over his lack of journalistic credentials. The implication is that we should not take him seriously.

The flip side of this is that you seem to think that we should take you seriously just because you do.

We still await a serious criticism of Glenn's work. As an avid consumer of news, my opinion is that Glenn does some of the best research in the business. His posts are universally well researched and all facts are documented, usually exhaustively, his writing is nonpareil, first rate, and unlike the swill that permeates the MSM with which you are apparently complicit, and certainly complaisant with - informative and fearless.

How's that occupation of Iraq working out for you and your friends anyway?

Oh, and perhaps you could point us to some of your vast body of Journalistic output? Something say from that giant beacon of peerless journalism the Akron Beacon Journal? We'd like to compare and contrast.

Editor's Choices: a CJR Survey

America's Best Newspapers

http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/99/6/best.asp

http://www.virtourist.com/newspapers/america.htm

And finally... We're number 74! We're number 74!

Top 100 newspapers in America

http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html

Like father like son Professor.

"The Beacon Journal

That was my hometown paper growing up. It was, how shall I say, not on a par with the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the NYTimes."

Come now nequals! Since you are obviously not a real Journalist, you are hardly qualified to evaluate the merits of such a bastion of illuminated Jounalism! Harumph Harumph...

the "perfessor"

From Media Matters

CNN's John King repeated McCain's dubious explanation of vote against Bush tax cuts

Summary: CNN's John King reported that Sen. John McCain "didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts because there weren't spending cuts." In fact, during the Senate debate on the conference committee version of the 2001 tax cut bill, McCain did not mention the absence of offsetting spending cuts; rather, he stated that, while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100014

Johhny wants a cracker, Johnny wants a cracker... squawk squawk!

Kansas dies!

Good.

What is it with people? They all have sex, or at least their parent's did. But you can't actually talk about it, at least not on TV or radio. Thank god for the internets!

Something I have never understood? Why is perfectly ok for me to say, "sexual intercourse" or "copulation" but not the dreaded "f" word.

A lot of this comes from American Taliban religious freaks who apparently have never read the Song of Solomon, or recall that Adam and Eve were, gasp! Naked! They even fucked each other and had Cain and Abel. Not sure where their "wives" came from though.

In Canada, we really don't give a shit. The Trailer Park Boys are on TV, and no one really cares, well a few people, but fuck them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3876013210180215500&q=trailer+park+ (url split here, cut and paste to join together)

boys&total=1093&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

I would like people hear to help me understand just why Bsuh, cheney the undead, the neocons and Israel all want to attack Iran so much?

Is it about oil? The protection of Israel? Global hegemony? I have my theories of course, but I would really like to know what other people think.

It's tragic that you are failing students who use a perfectly serviceable reference such a the wikipedia... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

or here:

Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler Sr, AP

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

It's called the "wisdom of the crowds"; something that you are experiencing here.

It's too bad people here spent so much time trying to find out if you are "real". I could care less. Professor or prole, you are a pretentious twit; your own words and lack of cogent arguments are good proof of that.

If a dog tells me 2+2=4. I don't say, "What do you know? You are just a dog!" I check his math.

Is this a greeting card or a serious article? What is your point in using such a puerile, trite phrase? It adds nothing.

And what, exactly, makes John McCain a "war hero"? He got shot down bombing a city, a city full of civilians, then he was in prison for a while. So?

Audie Murphy was a genuine "war hero" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy. Murphy fought a real enemy, hand to hand. He was not a brainwashed dupe who rained death from 30,000 feet. He was not some fucking "hero" who helped kill 3 million "slopes", sorry Vietnamese, civilians simply because they believed in a competing economic system.

If killing civilians makes you a "war hero" then America must have a lot of "war heroes".