"I just witnessed a Ron Pauliac, Che, Greenwald, Nebuchadnezzar sandwich. Is that even edible?"

Yeah, but it needs more garlic.

I suppose I'll never get Glenn to loan me that money now.

Sheesh.

Sorry, Mona, I tried.

I just witnessed a Ron Pauliac, Che, Greenwald, Nebuchadnezzar sandwich. Is that even edible?

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere outside of a Douglas Adams or Robert Anton Wilson novel would you find an exchange of dialogue(?) like that.

"Senate Democrats must commit themselves to blocking any and all nominees until Bush nominates someone whose independence and integrity are beyond reproach."

Really? Why? They rolled over for 2 SCOTUS appointments, they rolled over for defunding the war, then they rolled over for vastly increased executive snooping powers. If the democrats then choose to fight over Gonzales' replacement, what will that prove besides their hypocrisy?

Are you advocating that the dems behave like a loudmouthed impotent drunk who only starts screaming "let me at him" once he has two friends are holding him back?

You are usually a perceptive writer, Mr Greenwald, but I'm afraid you've been sipping the koolaid in this instance.

Big 'Lefty' Bloggers? LOL. Keep your eye on the ball...Glenn is not the bad guy.

One thing I don't understand about some liberals is the need to claim the high ground and castigate everyone around them for not being holy enough.

There are some lefy blogs that are not really my thing but people who are only 95% right instead of 100% right are not the problem and attacking them is self-defeating.

Glenn doesn't think protesting in the streets is effective - who gives a shit? It's quite obvious that Glenn is in the top 1% or so of effective liberals so whatever he is doing is working pretty well.

I'm not saying don't criticize, but keep the bigger picture in mind please. Keep minor squabbles minor squabbles.

My recommendation to President Bush: put in John Yoo as recess appointment for AG. Big FU to congressional democrats.

What I ask of Glenn is that he resist the urge to dismiss out of hand the human tendency to take more direct action when they see a threat to their lives, liberty, family, etc.

But Che - I am NOT doing this and never do. I am not dismissing it at all, let alone out of hand. Street marches are not WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO. It is not what I think is the most effective means.

But I NEVER go out of my way to find people who are doing what you describe and start writing about how what they are doing is pointless, meaningless, ineffective, etc. I have never written a word about any of that in any post I have written. The ONLY time I address it at all is when someone comes here in comments and starts saying that what we're doing here is pointless, meaningless, irrelevant because only a Street Protest or more (Revolution) can have an effect. Only then do I engage that issue by explaining why I think that's off-base.

If people want to march in the street by the hundreds of thousands or millions, go right ahead. If I thought it would work or if I saw evidence that it was, I would change my mind, encourage it, join in. But I don't believe that. Nonetheless, I do NOT seek to dissuade others from doing it. The only time I speak about it at all is when people come here - where I do what I do -- to proclaim it irrelevant because only Street Marches work.

That's what I mean in the above comment - if someone wants to come here and say that the work I do and the work others here do is irrelevant because all is doomed, they are free to. But they are not free to remain immune from the same kinds of criticism they are voicing.

There are many ways in which demonstrations, i.e. people making their physical bodies noisily visible in support or protest, can be more effective than "the pen," especially the electronic pen. Bush has been effectively shielded from protest because a) his handlers determine what he sees and reads and b) the crowds that have tried to confront him, to tell him how intensely they disagree with him have been too small, have been manageable by some pretty Mickey-Mouse techniques. No Chicago 1968 needed. Yes, if large crowds had showed up everywhere Bush showed up and refused to disperse or be silent, we might live in a different world today than we do.

Does anyone disagree with this, even Glenn?

That jury duty must have been a real trial, (koff, koff), because you appear to have no idea what's being discussed here whatsoever.

This is one reason I suggest some of Glenn's defenders really aren't serving him very well at all. Of course I could be wrong, but it's hard to believe he wants defenders who just parrot his errors.

For example, it is Glenn, not I, who makes much (and makes mock) of the Glorious Revolution (that is to come). In fact, I say little about it. Revolt, maybe; Revolution, no. But as I say, if it's to come, it will do so quite regardless of you, me or Glenn. Some things are bigger than we ourselves. Hard to believe, I know, but there you are.

Further, what Glenn accomplishes, what I accomplish, what you accomplish, all contributes to the vast, eternal scheme of things. And some accomplishments have a greater impact than others. I am not in competition with Glenn, have no need or desire to compete with him in any way. I hope my criticism, whatever it may be, is constructive. There's no point in trying to cast aspersions for the sake of it.

My criticism of Glenn in this thread has to do with his tendency to mock and disparage (and as Selise suggests) discourage people who see their a world being destroyed and little or nothing being done to correct the situation. He denies he does this, some of his defenders echo his denials. He certainly hasn't discouraged me -- nor do I think he could. He's been asked repeatedly what he thinks would be more effective than what public protestors do, since he is convinced that public protest is ineffective. Instead of answering, he lists what he does, in a description of his own actions that sounds startlingly like what street protestors do, only it's not in the streets(!), and how much faith he has incrementalism.

I and others would argue that empirically, the situation with regard to the various BushWars, corruption, civil liberties, the media in general, and soon the economy, etc. is not getting better overall, it gets demonstrably worse in some ways, though perhaps individual situations, including his own, may be improving. Certainly he is having an increasing impact on members of the punditocracy and media in general. And that is all to the good.

But there is only so much an individual can do.

What I ask of Glenn is that he resist the urge to dismiss out of hand the human tendency to take more direct action when they see a threat to their lives, liberty, family, etc.

He may be right that I am misperceiving his point of view about all this. I'm certainly open to that argument as well.