". . . prison is simply not the place for the most powerful and entrenched members of the Beltway royal court."

This is true. They belong (a) against a wall facing a firing squad, (b) at the end of a rope, (d) on a water board, or (e) hell, why not, beheaded on YouTube.

...because I did get that jeremys was writing satire, but not that Ace was. Of course, I didn't know the history, and I've seen too many flaming comments (esp at Broadsheet) on Salon. Not quite like that one, but close enough to figure it had just escalated.

I'm sure someone got it and we'll see it appear on C&L or (hopefully) the Daily Show.

I missed it at first, then rewound the DVR when I heard him apologize later.

Gene Lyons:
http://nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/154258/print

Celebrity pundits are on their way out
Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006

In my experience, there’s no bigger bunch of crybabies in American public life than the fops and courtiers of our Washington press corps. If Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner did nothing else, it surely proved that. Two years ago, the same crowd guffawed at a White House video depicting that playful scamp, George W. Bush, searching the Oval Office for Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction. Yet they were offended to hear Colbert [ . . . ] By and large, the Beltway celebrities were not amused. The classical term, pardon my French, is lèse majesté: the crime of insulting the king. Most empathized with the president, poor baby, sitting with a forced grin while being lampooned to his face. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen grumped that “Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.”

[ . . . ] This president loves dishing it out. The Associated Press reporter who introduced Colbert told an anecdote about Bush teasing him at a press conference for having “a face for radio.” Ha, ha, ha. Good one, Mr. President. He is awfully homely. Colbert’s performance, however, made it clear that Bush doesn’t enjoy taking it.

Well, tough. Millions of Americans haven’t enjoyed being subjected to Bush’s swaggeringly contemptuous disregard for the truth. Nor, to come to the point, the posturing of media enablers like Cohen, a liberal columnist who wrote in 2000 that the nation was “in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse.... That man is George W. Bush.”

The larger point is that Beltway courtiers like Cohen, Time’s Joe Klein and others currently succumbing to the vapors over critical e-mails from fans thrilled by Colbert’s gutsy performance are on their way out. [ . . . ]

- - Gene Lyons, May 10, 2006

Sometimes "etiquette" is just another word for Stockholm Syndrome. (And why not? Isn't a Sun King but a dandified bank robber?) Seigneur de Colbert, didst thou forget to bend thy knee as the royal chamber pot proceeds on by!

I hope some one has that TiVoed.

Almost certainly, MM for A or C&L has it.

Chris Matthews a minute ago was caught on the return from a commercial break saying to his panel of guests, "...we're all acting here and putting on shit," before he realized he was live.

Talk about unintentional truth-telling.

but maybe you should take a deep one, read a couple of chapters from "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," and ask yourself whether this is exactly the right place to be having this fight on a near-daily basis with folks who, for the most part, don't have much of a genuine interest in the ideas you're trying to explore.

Read the whole book, and when you get over your utopian idealism, like the Marxist ideologues or "Libertarian" ideologues like Nozick or Ron Paul or kdwmson, join us back here in the real world.

Libertarianism is a "framework for utopia" (297-334).

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

- Nozick

Kitt:

I think Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit are one in the same. Aren't they?

Yes. Reynolds didn't write it, though; he linked (approvingly? One never can tell, but we guess yes) to the post, which was written by Ace. I've heard about Ace, because he stalks some of my favorite feminist bloggers, even though he's quite obviously terrified of them (and all their womanly parts).

Much of it has to do with "dead tree" journalism as an anachronistic business model. Books will be with us for some time to come. The Onion had a funny piece on this awhile back.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/media_landscape_redefined_by_24

Shooter Drunk, Shooter Sober

Sure sounds like USSR style justice to me, but apparently Dems are down with it -- Shooter 242, Tuesday June 19, 2007

You folks might want to consider, that unless you offer something better, authoritarianism is the only game in town.--Shooter 242, Saturday, April 7, 2007.

Which is which?

Cheers,

Which way the bayonet is pointing.

3-way race shaping up.

Thanks. You're too kind.

Cheers,

Just changed his political affiliation from Repuplican to "Unaffiliated".

Yes, but I read the Instaputz which is a totally different experience.

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/

Worst vice being advice and other caveats being duly noted: A few thoughts, here, libertarian to libertarian:

1. There are times when libertarianism is relevant to the conversation. And times when it's not, no? There's a time to let your libertarian freak flag fly, and a time to join (or observe) the conversation on its own terms. Some folks in these discussions make a hobby out of inchoate rage, true, but some of them are annoyed at you because you try to make every conversation about libertarianism.

2. Ron Paul is not happening. There's a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that's unfair. There's also a lot of criticism of Ron Paul that isn't unfair. He'd be lucky to be the James Baird Weaver of this election, if not the Andre Marrou. Who? Exactly.

3. There's a reason why libertarians have this funny reputation for being Johnny-One-Notes forever banging the spoon on the same theme. That reason is, not to put too fine a point on it, you. (And me, sometimes.) I don't want to be harsh, here, but maybe you should take a deep one, read a couple of chapters from "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," and ask yourself whether this is exactly the right place to be having this fight on a near-daily basis with folks who, for the most part, don't have much of a genuine interest in the ideas you're trying to explore.

I'm not saying don't bring it up when it suggests itself, especially when replying to one of the more thoughtful writers, such as Andrew Leonard, who seems to have a genuine interest in how and why markets work and what capitalism means to the world. Sometimes the subject comes up, and sometimes there's an interesting libertarian take on the day's conversation. But sometimes not.

That's my suggestion, anyway. But it's a free Internet.