Then I'm all for it.

Have you so soon forgotten how "radical" and "liberal" and DFH one needed to be in order to disagree with and protest America's dalliance in Vietnam? -- Kitt

What you describe is what a Rush Limbaugh would claim now, but it was not that way then. Oh perhaps on the surface some might have thought the only anti-war sentiment was in San Francisco among the love children, but it ran deep all over America by boys who faced the draft and by the women who loved them.

I admit I do not recall a lot of concern for the innocent women and children being murdered in little villages on the other side of the world. The concern was for the Americans that were at risk.

Damn, that is it. I see now. A man is a radical if he can see the pain and suffering from the viewpoint of the poor villager who has never done anything to harm the war-machine called America and could not do so even if he wanted to. That is it. That is a radical.

How many Americans hate the war (pick one, I hate them all) simply because we have become monsters and are killing innocent people? Whoever they are, and how ever many there are of them; they are your radical Americans.

But all this leads to another problem. When did a "radical" become a "liberal"? The two were not always the same, you know.

What you describe is what a Rush Limbaugh would claim now, but it was not that way then. Oh perhaps on the surface some might have thought the only anti-war sentiment was in San Francisco among the love children, but it ran deep all over America by boys who faced the draft and by the women who loved them.--Heru

You've misunderstood my snark. I know that it wasn't ever just the dfh's and the "sentiment in San Francisco" that were against the war in Vietnam. But back then, just as now, McGovern was branded as the commie liberal and Nixon was Mr. America, even though the disapproval of the engagement/war was wide spread and deep.

I have seen nothing to note that while Ms. Maddow may be of liberal thought, she is not a partisan.

Glenn, what is your opinion on Media Matters? Legitimate media challenging entity, or partisan smear machine?

How did it happen that a man is "liberal", or "moderate", or "conservative" based on his favoring or disfavoring going to war against people who have not harmed us; or, in fact, could not do so?

How did it happen that a person is "rich" or "poor" depending on whether they pull in (not "earn") $5M in income in a year? (click sig; last 5 posts). That's a more interesting question. In fact, it may be that you can be "poor" and be a billionaire. Who woulda thunk it?

Cheers,

Maddow represents exactly what? A head fake with some yummy candy....

Excuse me, but what gives you the authority to say that Dr. Maddow is "yummy candy"? Nothing you say evinces much insight or even intelligence. Care to explain why you think (in advance of her debut) that Maddow will not acquit herself with the honour and applomb that she has done previously?

Cheers,

LowOrbitBoy quips (quite the quipster our LowOrbitBoy): "keith olderman" . . . . blah, blah blah. The question begs, is our LowOrbitBoy really quipping, or is he suffering from dsylexia?? You know, Dog loves you. And I wonder what Monsieur Savage would have to say about kids suffering from that particular affliction?? Slackers??

If the RWers want to keep calling the Democratic party the "Democrat party", wouldn't it be just fine for us to start referring to "The New Republic" as "The New Republicans"?

Jes' sayin'....

Cheers,

[Kitt, to NoBBy]: Why do you comment? Just to blow it out your ear?

He gets "McCain points". If he gets enough, he gets to be a Republican Team Leader and gets a nice tote bag.

Cheers,

[bryanv, to Glenn]: Glenn, what is your opinion on Media Matters? Legitimate media challenging entity, or partisan smear machine?

Well, to be a "smear machine", you have to actually smear people. That would imply spreading falsehoods about them. Please elucidate as to exactly what falsehoods MM has been spreading.....

"If they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stephenson (link at sig)

Cheers,

Rachel will be delighted.

She adores Mittens. She has said as much.

http://tiny.cc/Mittens

I am so relieved the government has solved the mystery of 7 World Trade Center with brand new science.

Wow.

Wait, didn't the FBI invent some brand new science to solve the anthrax mystery?

I realize that it's an Overton Window thing. It's just that I never cease to be amazed when it's unthinkingly accepted if not knowingly and eagerly advanced by the SCLM. It's like watching a lobotomy being performed on an entire society one cut at a time, with those whose purpose (at least in theory) is to help safeguard against such a thing serving as all too willing assistants.

The underlying impetus for this process has always come from the far right (the Powell memo, Phyllis Schlaffly, Buchanan & Safire), which realized long ago that moving the goalposts is easier than moving the ball. But the establishment media has been a vital and willing participant in it for decades, and it's infuriating to see it happening on a daily if not hourly basis by allegedly "legitimate" reporters. It's gotten to the point where "everybody knows" that what they say is true, regardless of whether or not it is. The disconnect between actual and presented reality is beyond surreal. It's like waking up as a character in 1984.

I'm sure that a lot of these propaganda disseminators who call themselves reporters realize that what they're saying is bullshit. I mean, they can't all be this stupid. But I'm guessing that most of them realize early on in their careers that the easiest, safest and surest path to success is to play along with the establishment, not go up against it--something that the power centers in this establishment fully realize and exploit--and decide to do so.

In fact, they don't even need to decide, seeing as we live in a society that has become steadily more cynical and narcissistic since the various 60's movements petered out in the 70's (which was yet another consequence of decades of conservative dominance--conservatism is about selfishness at its core, and always has been). And they're just a part of and manifestation of this cynicism. Why do one's actual job when a crafty and cynical simulation pays the bills, advances one's career and assures no unpleasant confrontations with the powers that be?

Why, indeed.