You would think someone of my advanced years would know better than to disagree with the conventional, syncophantic [sic] wisdom of the masses sucking up to Glenn Greenwald.

You would think that a person that calls himself a journalist would do -- you know, like a little friggin' bit of research? -- before lapsing into the RW foamer caricature of both Glenn and the commentators here.

Glenn is not "left-wing" (and "liberal" primarily if not exclusively in the classic "civil liberties" sense). Albeit, "Prof" Tim here didn't say that, but it comes through loud and clear that his opinion of Glenn is something of the sort. Glenn takes pains to keep his own political leanings out of discussions, and concentrates on legal and ethical issues in the practise of politics and gummint.

Glenn's commentators are a very diverse bunch, from all parts of the political spectrum. There's no "sycophancy" here, in fact some of the more varied and spirited discussions around the blogosphere (just say "Ron Paul" to kick-start a thread). One thing they have in common is a lot of intelligence, a lot of experience, and a lot of knowledge (helped quite a bit by Glenn's -- and others' -- efforts here). Maybe the one thing that "Prof" Tim has managed to do is unite them in laughter that "Prof" Tim would write the letter he did after Glenn's column on King (one thing that might have clue in "Prof" Tim that he was sadly misjudging his audience was the fact that one poster thought his post was exquisite satire). But that almost universal derision of "Prof" Tim is hardly sycophancy.

"Prof" Tim: Clue fer you ('cause you need it). Think before you post again, 'mkay?

Cheers,

Something I forgot to add in my earlier post.

You criticize, some, less charitable than myself, might say "attack", Glenn over his lack of journalistic credentials. The implication is that we should not take him seriously.

The flip side of this is that you seem to think that we should take you seriously just because you do.

We still await a serious criticism of Glenn's work. As an avid consumer of news, my opinion is that Glenn does some of the best research in the business. His posts are universally well researched and all facts are documented, usually exhaustively, his writing is nonpareil, first rate, and unlike the swill that permeates the MSM with which you are apparently complicit, and certainly complaisant with - informative and fearless.

How's that occupation of Iraq working out for you and your friends anyway?

Oh, and perhaps you could point us to some of your vast body of Journalistic output? Something say from that giant beacon of peerless journalism the Akron Beacon Journal? We'd like to compare and contrast.

Medicating to suppress symptoms and keeping people in theatre has been an Army tactic with mixed results. The rates of returnees with one or more symptoms of acute mental illness is around 50%, and that is known to be an under-reported number. The culture is still that of "sucking it up" and "getting the job done". There is also a significant ethos of being there for one's buddies, and sufferers are loathe to admit to problems.

Add to that military and VA healthcare systems chasm of transitioning from acute to chronic care, and from military to VA or civilian healthcare system.

There is also a significant problem of returnees having mental health services delayed during crisis states. And then Chapter 5-13 discharges are "offered" seemingly to expedite care, only to have the veteran find that this disqualifies him or her from VA care eligibility and also triggers bonus payback clauses.

Some veterans who have sustained service related injuries and illnesses have found themselves without any means to access any kind of healthcare, and as a parting smooch, find themselves expected to pay back thousands of dollars in bonuses and combat pay.

During Rumsfeld's time, I believed that the plan was to keep redeploying troops until they were killed in the field in order to "contain lifetime healthcare costs". I have yet to disabuse myself of that notion.

For an excellent resource-laden blog about PTSD, check out PTSD Combat, authored by Ilona Meagher.

Trollish behavior is characterized by trying to hijack a comment thread and/or monopolize it for other purposes or another agenda. I also think that Trolls post in bad faith, but not everyone else would agree with that.

It's not so black and white, either/or.

When in doubt, you might want to check a commenter's archives before responding to something. That's one way to avoid being taken in. However, most people don't bother, preferring to test the water with both feet. In addition to a history of comments, you can also see in the archives where (on Salon) and when they post, how often, all kinds of stuff. Sometimes, you even find people you admire, or other comment threads that make you want to read them,too.

* * *

Prof. Tim: There are all kinds of reasons that people post "anonymously," though we don't consider them truly anonymous here if they have a recognizable screen name and can be tracked through their archives.

(Some have jobs that could become vulnerable if they were found posting political comments; others have been harassed; and some write things that are more personal, and simply would prefer not to be identified. Still, we are all identifiable to Salon...)

You mean they were acting like these guys?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/asia/15isi.html?scp=2&sq=carlotta+gall

Doesn't that mean someone should ask the IAEA to come to our country and make sure our nukes can't fall into the hands of terrorists?

I guess this means that dictators and dictator wannabes make the same excuses now?

Oh, and as long as I'm trolling anyway I would like to get paid for it.--Aycharaych

But that's a good thing.

;-)

Our Professor Smith has teased out the big guns. I think I'll go pour myself a glass of wine and sit back.

Do be aware Prof Smith that there are an array of folks commenting at Glenn's blog who are, er, academically loaded for bear. Please do not make the error of assigning academic acumen based on conversational language.