Or trolls. Or whatever. I always find interesting / disturbing the number of new posters who pop up in response (all following the same line, quoting the same 'facts' -- just think about the Al Gore inventing the internet 'fact' that even today is bandied about), and quivering with indignation whenever an imaginary line in the sand has been stepped over. In this case calmer heads are trying to tone down the "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran", "feeding-frenzy, blood-in-the-water" red meat stuff that politicos trot up to feed and assauge a shell-shocked populace.

arendt 33, first time poster writes: "Dr. Cole, I hope that it gives you pause to see that the vast majority of the letter writers who enjoyed your article appear to be anti - semetic (sic)(in addition, of course, to being anti - zionist) readers who seem just thrilled that somebody with a fancy academic position is justifying their views."

Actually, most of the posters have stated just the opposite and are taking on Dr. Cole about the article. You should actually read a few. Knee-jerk responses, such as your own, only damage your cause . . .

Sandy Yago demonstrates her street cred* "Born as John,at some point for reasons not known but potentially interesting, Mr Cole changed his English surname to its Spanish version." Whazzat?? I was under the impression his surname was Cole. Always was, and will probably be so in the future. I think you're refering to his 'first name' aka 'given name' also known to some idjits as a 'chrisitan name'. If you're going to diss the good doctor, well, well . . .

You can look at this whole thing two ways. The woman obviously represents "America". That being said, she obviously has a huge constituency out there that love her and live in her vision of America. On the other hand she has a huge constituency that despise her because her vision of America is not the kind of place you'd want to live. And that'll determine who gets to sit in the big leather chair after election day.

This is just pocket change. I don't get it. Everyone is running around pissing themselves over this ovious swindle. "The slippery slope to socialism", thundered some big hair guy in the House (as if socialists are stupid enough to throw the money to a bunch of capitalistic swindlers). But nary a peep about the biggest swindle of all time: "sometime in 2009 the direct costs of the war the Bush administration once predicted would cost perhaps $50-60 billion in total will stand at more than $800 billion, or $100 billion above the cost (if all goes well, which it won't) of the bailout of the financial system now being proposed in Washington. /snip/ . . . for years, the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, and America's wars are in the process of bankrupting us. How strange then that, as he indicates below, no one in the mainstream even blinks when a staggering new Pentagon budget sails through the House of Representatives and then, by voice vote, through the Senate just as negotiators in Washington are scrambling to find a similar sum to deal with a catastrophic financial meltdown; nor does anyone in the mainstream bother to make any connection between that budget and the funds we don't have available to use elsewhere, or between the looting of Iraq and the looting of our financial system (and, in both cases, of course, the looting of the American taxpayer)."

Of course, this is one of the biggest taboos in America -- you cannot criticize the military. That's un-American and un-Patriotic, etc.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraud

Jaysus, is that a recommendation?? Mike is okay, for awhile, but in the long run he usually ends up shooting himself in the foot. Borat?? Unwatchable. Excruciatingly bad. Embarrassing. I had a chat with a European friend about it. His response, "Only an American would find that shite funny . . . "

I'll wait till this one comes out on DVD.

Lay off her already. Ignore her, maybe she'll just go away. Let's face it, she's turning into the focal point of this election. Or rather, the Terri Schiavo of the whole campaign. She has the ability to bring out the worst in both sides, and rationality has flown out the window. She's the Statue of Liberty play, the beard, the tinsel on the tree. It doesn't matter what she says. The left tries to hang her with the rope she's been given, while the right just loves her all the more. Jane Six-pack and all that. Hell, running the last outpost of freedom & frontierism in the union while holding a huntin' rifle in one hand, an old testament in the other, and with a special needs child suckling on her teat . . .

Let Sarah be Sarah, let her receeded into the background, and let's turn the heat on those who are really running the show . . .

agore goes in over the blue line, he winds up for the shot: "If we're going to get serious about this whole atheism thing..."

He lets it rip: "...then are liberals finally going to admit that trees and rocks don't actually have souls?""

And the crowd moans . . .

Too bad you didn't have a real hockey mom.

gandi writes a heartfelt and pretty good analysis of America's biggest malaise (a lovely metaphor involving soccer-playing kids and the inability to accept the truth and to respect others), then signs off with: "And now, coincidentally, it's nearly time to go and watch Sarah Palin try to act like a grown up in the VP debate..."

Snark, snark, snark. Did you write that with a smirk? Does the word 'smug' creep in there?? Doctor, heal thyself . . .