it was still cheap, and ultimately it said more about Matthews, his show and the whole universe of similar programming than it ever could have about James.

Now I know your problem, Koppelman: you suffer from that debilitating condition of so many "liberals: - you care about the underdog, even when it's a pig-ignorant dirtbag like Kevin James.

You also seem surprised by this kind of television. It's been this way for over a decade, Alex: where have you been stuffing your head to not have noticed?

You are right about one thing: it does reveal something about Matthews. Similarly, your column - particularly your choice of subjects - reveals much about you.

You appear to lack even a basic knowledge of American government and law. You've obviously never even bothered to read the Constitution. Had you ever bothered to do so, or otherwise pry open your narrow little mind to learn something, you'd know about "separation of powers," "checks and balances," and other assorted goodies which prevent this "oligarchy" you so childishly fear. I'm not surprised: being a hardcore Republican, not even ignorance of the subject will stop you from offering a ruefully uninformed opinion. But you are good for a few chuckles, at least. It's like watching a pig try to walk on ice.

This is a pointless argument. Lists of movies and books are by their very nature reductive. The mere presumption of making a list leads automatically to the exclusion of numerous items. Even if you do the "100 greatest books" list, you leave out the 101st greatest, the 102nd, etc.

The very nature of your list determines this editing. If you did compile a list of books which promote "womanly virtues," no doubt Philip Roth would not appear on it, in spite of his status as "our greatest living writer." Anyone expecting Toni Morrison to show up on a list of books which are "manly" is as foolish as expecting a 1930s pulp thriller to show up on a "100 greatest works of Chinese literature" list.

Of course it doesn't stop intellectually lazy critics like Shukert from wailing and exposing their ignorance. Come on: a mere Wikipedia click could have told Shukert that both Kafka and Rand are Jewish, for example. Even if one were to excuse this glaring error (her knee-jerk response obviously stems from Shukert's ignorance of either literature or Jewish surnames - maybe Kafka doesn't "sound Jewish" enough for Shukert?), how could one justify the banal stupidity of Shukert's argument? Let's say one did compile a list of "womanly" books - should the guys at the Manly Blog then retort, "You know what's not womanly? Presidential biographies apparently." Because, you know, such a list would likely exclude biographies of Presidents.

These ideas of "manly" and "womanly" are as old as the hills, almost archetypal in fact. Criticizing this list of "manly" books, or any reductive list of works, for what the list excludes displays more ignorance and narrowness of intellect than anything else. Especially considering some great works of literature are on this list, and if the "manly" aspect inspires some 14-year old boy to read more, then it must be worth it. Right?

Thus, this tired refrain from Shukert is an empty, pointless argument, written merely to fulfill some deadline or quota, or maybe to garner the fee to pay for drinks this weekend. Little thought - and apparently no research - was put into it. (And if much thought was put into it, well, that's just damn sad.)

Looks like Broadsheet is following the Koppelman War Room path to cheap-thrill journalism and fact-faulty analysis. All praise to the editorial reign of Joan Walsh!

Taking credit where none is due? "Have you no shame?"

Joan Walsh is an amazingly self-absorbed, self-serving, megalomaniac hack.

This is such a non-story, I'm surprised it's not the subject of a week-long, angst-driven, hair-pulling series of columns from Joan Walsh.

Lieberman appears to be taking a role in McCain's campaign similar to the role played by Dick Cheney: a trusted adviser who can help guide the candidate through a morass of issues. If Baghdad Joe is named to head the running-mate selection committee, we'll know the fix is in.

Never though you could plunge lower than your past, Walsh. But the snide remark about Ephron responding to Bernstein demonstrates better than anything your true essence: a spoiled, privileged, bitter, old, white, racist misandrist. I suppose you lack the intelligence to actually critique Bernstein's remarks, or perhaps you just thought your childish snark was clever.

Or perhaps you lack the courage to face the truth about what you preferred candidate has done in dividing Democrats with petty, often imaginary (and always reactionary) remarks about "sexism" and "misogyny" while simultaneously race-baiting and pandering to the religious right. The "San Francisco" values you so proudly proclaim seem replete with hypocrisy and destructive self-hatred. You and thousands of other bitter, old white women would rather see John McCain as President, it seems - you're more comfortable with a sexist old white man than any black man as President.

Wes lacks a sense of humor. Well, Wes lacks much sense at all.

My favorite line: "Good lord they've all gone crazy. It's not just Lanny Davis any more."

Thanks, Koppelman. You are 100% right: we all need a good laugh. (Especially that bite-in-the-ass right-wing sports-jock Notorious WES!)

Step 1. Lighten up.

Step 2. Unclench.

Step 3. Feel the relief.