I believe you're absolutely correct in your description of the dangers of the current political landscape for progressives. By allowing themselves to be coopted by Obama/Democrats, they are only sowing the seeds of a great revanchist backlash, which of course will only serve the interests of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. with greater efficiency.

I used to believe that right-wingers' obsession with an alleged cult of Obama was just sour grapes, and a meaningless display of their typical disingenuousness; but unfortunately the way many liberal groups keep breathlessly referring to him as some sort of savior has proven the wingnuts' point. The usual way it's phrased in emails from these organizations is something like "Help Obama..." do such-and-such.

This is not only irritating, it's condescending, and makes me believe that establishment progressives hold us in as much contempt as their counterparts on the right. It's certainly not surprising to me in this context that you're hearing people's frustration expressed in the rhetoric of violence. There simply is no part of the establishment that's both willing to turn the tide and strong enough to do it.

Glenn, can you elaborate on your characterization of HRC as "dreadful"? I'm inclined to agree with you, but also believe that the organization serves a purpose, however limited: to ensure that GLBT people have a voice in the establishment.

I'm just wondering if you have other info. about HRC that you'd be willing to share.

They support a more inclusive ENDA this year, most likely due to the severe backlash they took from all marginalized groups when they threw transgender people under the bus in 2007, but I won't be trusting them again any time soon.

Your post illustrates my point: that I'd never look to HRC to be a vanguard, but they can learn from their mistakes and accomplish some good in the process. Repugnant though it may be to those of us who are not - and don't seek to be - "mainstream," an organization like HRC has a purpose. If ENDA passes, that would be a step forward, don't you think?

So if ENDA passes, it's only because there are more Democrats in Congress, irrespective of a well-funded lobbying group's actions? I never realized our representatives were so altruistic.

This is a civil rights movement. Either you're in the vanguard or you aren't there at all.

Were Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X both advocating for racial equality? Or was only one of them authentic? Did the other accomplish nothing of value?

We live in an age where modern technology (mobile phones, the internet, etc.) allows each of us to seal ourselves within a masturbatory bubble, and status in this crowd of narcissists depends on being able to recruit as many other people as possible to join our micro cult of personality (Facebook, YouTube).

Personally, I think anonymity is the new prize, as it gets harder to achieve with each passing year. Even if you don't participate in this junk fame, there is probably more data stored in more places about each of us than for all previous generations of human beings combined - what we buy, how much we make, where we live, ad nauseum. Only a fool believes that this isn't creepy and scary.

Although Williams is onto something about this democratization of fame, the connection with unemployment seems tenuous at best. Fame, at least in the old-fashioned sense of the word, is its own reward and curse - just watch "Sunset Boulevard" for perhaps the most insightful depiction of the latter.

The problem with the newfangled version of it is that it means nothing. No one will remember balloon boy's loser dad a year from now, and I highly doubt anyone will be hiring him for anything. I hope the authorities stick him with the bill for the helicopters and rescue personnel who were forced to spend precious resources on his stupid publicity stunt.

I just feel compelled to point out that for me the most surprising thing here is the British court's robust assertion to the effect that the U.K. is a separate and sovereign nation, independent of its former colony, and that the considerations of the latter don't necessarily apply to the former.

Them's fightin' words.

This impudent declaration of sorts will no doubt cause much consternation and wailing amongst the "Keep America Safe" crowd. I expect Mary Cheney to request an audience with Gordon Brown and the Queen post-haste.

I remember going to see "Blair Witch" 10 years ago when everybody hyped it as the scariest movie ever. After the film, the only thing I respected about it was the marketing genius behind such nitwittery.

Not only did I not find it scary, but I was soon rooting for the Blair Witch to finally make her appearance and gruesomely murder all the annoying people onscreen. I guess none of the people who claimed to be so scared by it had ever seen "Psycho" or "The Thing" or "Alien" or any number of grade-A horror films, or else it was just a simple case of emotional contagion (everyone says it's scary, so it must be).

Also - when did incessant banal gibberish start to substitute for actual writing? The run-on-at-the-mouth phenomenon of modern "indie" American films is profoundly grating, but is somehow fitting for a society as narcissistic as ours. It can only be appreciated by people who still believe all of their midnight college musings at age 19 were as profound as Dostoevsky.

Definitely good news, and great ammunition to use against Palinists' ridiculous and hollow charges of "big government".

I'm wondering if there is any reliable documentation of the pharmaceutical industry's reaction or lobbying efforts with respect to this or or other drug law reform. The argument that they oppose it makes intuitive sense to me, but I'm simply not aware of any actual data. Such info. might also come in handy for health care reform debates.

It's more or less just fascism with big boobs, isn't it?