Furthermore, if you click on the tiny words in blue, it will magically transport you to other sites that relate to Glenn's text.

Must you give up all our secrets???!!

ondelette ... Dis yo see the recent piece ....

I'm sending some Crips to your house right now.

Or Bloods, if I can't find any Crips to give you spelling and grammar lessons. In either case, believe me, they teach in a manner that brooks no laziness--learn or your knuckles will be rapped (or, as we say in the Crips/Bloods world of academia, publish or perish).

Thank you to the both of you for addressing Bernbart's superhuman obtuseness. For the last few days BB has been absolutely insufferable; like some of the other benighted, gullible souls who feel compelled to post here (you know who they are), BB keeps coming back for more, and more, and more. I stopped reading back on page 16; it's late, and I just want to enjoy my vodka gimlet while I contemplate GG's further exposing of why the US Empire is in it's death spiral.

Your repetetive excuses for your beloved Obama are predictable and tiresome.

You are too funny.

Correct me if I'm wrong,,but it is my understanding that Obama was 'weighing the idea' of establsiihing indefinite detentions. It is a snot been put into policy.

Nuff said (though I had a hard time deciding how much of that to bold).

Not sure what I could have been offended by in your post, so none taken.

Have you heard of ICOS? (International Council on Security and Development)

http://www.icosgroup.net/modules/press_releases/us_makes_historic_shift

They do some good work on the opium problem. They propose buying it for medicine. Makes sense to me.

your long digressive foray into the history of opium in afghanistan notwithstanding, you said the Taliban was "always" involved in the heroin trade. My example proves that "always" is not true. Indeed, the Taliban were the first in afghan history to enforce opium eradication and implemented the most successful eradication in history -- 75% (what kind of percentages are the DEA and their friendly partners in Columbia racking up, I wonder? you think they thought through all the angles? all the unintended consequences?). Then, what do you know, 1/2 year later this same Taliban are booted out of Kabul. This also btw means their opium eradication lasted nearly a year and a half (July 2000 - November 2001) as opposed to 7 months as you state, so your math is wrong there, as well. So it's hardly an insignificant blip in its history, such that you can forgo mentioning it in your sweeping condemnation of the Taliban. Especially when you consider that the Taliban had only been in power since 1996. But yeah, it's me talking shit, not you.

A little wiki quote here:

However, with the 2001 US/Northern Alliance expulsion of the Taliban, opium cultivation has increased in the southern provinces liberated from the Taliban control,and by 2005 production was 87% of the world's opium supply, rising to 90% in 2006.

I don't know who's making the world's heroin right now, but perhaps drug eradication is only meant to be something we pay lip service to, but woe to the government that actually tries to do it for real. I mean, drugs never provided the unmarked bills for our covert wars. The only people who believe that are the tin hats and those who missed the Iran Contra hearings.

Student: Zen Master, why does shit smell so bad?

Zen Master: If you were a fly, it would smell like ambrosia.

now dat's wat I'm twalkin' 'bout!

Huh. Yeah!

did you pick up that snappy jab from the pages of the paperBible--a variation on little Tommy Friedman's "suck on this" literary genius.

If you can't stand the heat in the comments section I'm sure there's a party somewhere in the Bay area overflowing with very important people being deprived of your thoughtful insights on a wide range of topics. Why waste all your pearls of wisdom on us dimbulbs at UT?

I don't know what you guys problem is. She accomplished what she set out to do, make the thread about her instead of the topic. She played all of you like a fiddle. And while you continue to go on about her she is just sitting back laughing. What did you accomplish besides play her tune while she conducted. Go back over the thread and see how much she controlled it. And you guys complain about the Administration setting what talking point are open for discussion and which one the ones will be buried in babble. How do you guys rate any better than the stenographers that would rather quibble over the definition of torture than report on it?

To rob a line from Joan Crawford and butcher it mercilessly, "Shut up about Bernbart."

That broad is the dumbest thing since lamp posts, NYT reader or no.

As for McClatchy, (and forgive me for skipping some infuriating pages in the middle of the comments), far from being, as Bernbart with her usually unfounded confidence asserts "not known for good journalism," that chain still holds the dying remains of Knight-Ridder, and even as it sinks underwater in acquisition-related debt, still retains some of the last vestiges of journalism left in these United States. Don't expect it to last. The Knight heir who crafted the mission statement of the company (perhaps drunkenly) wrote that quality would not be sacrificed on the altar of the countinghouse, but he's long dead and his once-great papers, like the Free Press in Detroit, The Miami Herald, and the Mercury News in California are all debt-ridden shadows of their former selves. Would that Omooex's idea that they could survive as "boutique journalism" be true... Soon Bernie's paper will be the only one, I fear.

More's the pity.

Anyone interested should read, "Knightfall," by Davis Merritt, a Knight alum writing a few years back. It's as gripping as it is sad. (it's also under that name in my past review..... link at sig)

I don't know what you guys problem is. She accomplished what she set out to do, make the thread about her instead of the topic. She played all of you like a fiddle.

Naturally, I've considered this but decided, on balance, that it's kind of fun to respond to her posts. Now Glenn Greenwald might not like that, if one thinks it's merely a distraction from his post(s) (although I believe I responded to bernbart/today's topic equally), and that's a position I'd definitely appreciate (and if GG tells me to stop, I will, since it's his blog); but there's also the possibility that bernbart is who she's presented herself to be--a person with a peculiar, deep and abiding love for the NYTimes who, simultaneously, has some problems with new media.

I really don't know what the truth of it is.

I do know that, well, life is short so have a little fun!