Mr. Greenwald,

First off, thank you for your thoughtful and substantive reply. I'm sorry that we've acquired a bitter tone, that was not my intent. But we do disagree. I know you're busy, and I don't expect a further reply, but let me respond to your points in order.

First, I consider the inability of social conservatives to live up to their own standards and the exemptions they instinctively give themselves to be a substantive issue. You apparently don't. That's fine. You shouldn't write about that issue on your blog.

Fair enough. For the record, I DO consider hypocrisy by social conservatives to be important. More specifically, I find it to be hilarious. I don't consider it "substantive" in the same sense that I consider matters of war, civil rights, or detainee abuse "substantive". Perhaps if I were more involved in the gay rights community, I would be more sensitive on this topic, but we must each obey the inscrutable exhortations of our souls. F-bombs don't do it for me.

Second, I write at least 6 days a week, and sometimes write several times a day. The idea that I'm obligated, at every moment, to write about The Most Important Topic is absurd. There are a whole variety of reasons why I choose to write about a topic. Whether it's The Most Important Topic is a factor, but not the only one.

I think here you're misinterpreting my comment again. You seem predisposed to think that my criticism implied that I would forbid you from writing about any topic that your heart desired, or that I feel like I have the right to dictate your topics. I don't think all of your posts must be about a mythical "most important topic", which generally doesn't objectively exist. As you said, that would be "absurd", and that's patently NOT what I'm trying to say.

But we meaningfully disagree on whether the Emanuel appointment is more important than Scarborough's use of the F-word (as you admit below, you don't find the former significant), and I don't think my criticism of you for prioritizing the latter over the former amounts to any sort of attempt at censorship or bossiness.

It's just plain criticism over a substantive disagreement. I'm not telling you what to write, I'm questioning your priorities. Can we agree that there's a difference between the two?

Third, what you think is The Most Important Topic may not be what I think is The Most Important Topic. And, in fact, I don't think the choice of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff is notable or revealing at all, and I don't really have much to say about it.

As I said above, I wasn't presuming that a "Most Important Topic" existed, I was comparing two existing topics (actually, facets of the same topic, in a sense) and your choice of priority. And I really do think you've got it wrong if you don't find this pick notable or revealing. Time will tell. (Let me make one prediction: the Emanuel pick reveals to me that we will still have combat troops in Iraq in 2012. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize on this page. It also tells me that Isreal/Palestine will be a non-starter for this administration. Again, I'll apologize if I'm wrong.)

Is it supposed to be surprising that some of Obama's appointees will be pro-war and hard-line on Israel?

Yes and no. I'm not surprised, because I've been cynical about Obama's anti-war stances from the beginning and deeply pessimistic about his Israel stance since he spoke before AIPAC. But some of his supporters WILL have been surprised. And Emanuel isn't just "hard-line" on Israel, he volunteered for the IDF during the first Gulf War. His dad was a Zionist militant (I won't use the buzz word terrorist). I can't name ANY high level White House appointee with a background like that. Rahm is unusual, even for American government.

He's going to have all sorts of appointees that I don't like...I also linked to an interview I gave this week where the interviewers asked me several times about Rahm Emanuel.

I will be listening to that interview for the material on civil liberties, on which you are regularly excellent. For the rest, I don't expect you to criticize (or praise) an administration that doesn't exist yet, but it makes me wonder that you have refrained from criticizing (or praising) an enormously significant first pick. Again, this is just a point of disagreement between us. I think this selection will turn out to be a huge deal over time.

Finally, I read a lot of bloggers. There aren't any of them -- including my absolute favorites -- who, at times at least, don't choose topics that don't interest me. When that happens, I don't write to them and tell them what they should write about instead.

Again, I think you're misconstruing my criticism. You routinely write about subjects I find totally uninteresting--no offense--and I've yet to waste any more than a click back to Google over it. I think you're making a substantive oversight THIS time by walking past the Emanuel issue, and I chose to make my point on your comments board, which presumably exists for that reason. Now that I know you don't consider Emanuel a meaningful issue, I'll be keeping that in mind reading your future posts.

In reality, I hope you're right. I'd RATHER be optimistic that Obama will condemn illegal war, act as an honest broker for peace in Israel/Palestine, and stop racking up enemies across the world. I would rather believe Emanuel is just a handy knee-capper enforcer who only HAPPENS to have played an active role in disrupting the campaigns of anti-war democrats running for Congress. Maybe those and other criticisms I've read of the man were unfair or full of misinformation.

But cynicism over the presidency has served me well thus far, and I don't feel guilty or unreasonable to question your judgment on this.