I mean, I can see why she would bother GG. She comes in on a regular basis and tells him he's ill-informed and that he's irrelevant in posts that are almost unintelligible with logic and spelling errors. But she's neither interesting nor dumb enough to merit this kind of attention. There does seem to be a certain pile on mentality once a certain button is triggered.

The big shame is that a conversation that could well have been interesting on what are drivers of ethics in a profit-generating American journalism--why a McClatchy has better reporting quite a bit more often than other big mainstream papers, turned into an intramural contest between the NYT and McClatchy--where the NYT is bad journalism incarnate and McClatchy some altruistic missionary of the craft. Neither versions could be true. I post links to good NYT articles here on a near daily basis--in fact, I counted at least two links to NYT stories here today--though the paper is about 80-99% establishment crap on any given day. People who post good articles from McClatchy wires, generally have no idea what the company is up to the rest of the time, what its 30 or so dailies throughout the nation are like, or that McClatchy runs a wire service, The New York Times News Service, in partnership with the NYT.

The black and white contest was disappointing given the really incredible amount of intelligence that is on regular display here and given what everyone must know is an incestuous, complicated and constantly shifting media ownership environment.

I agree that a good repartee is both fun and informative but for each of her posts half of your comments are about her and her misdirection of the thread with half a dozen others doing the same. That leaves little left for the topic.

Referring back to my first post, I need ideas on how to spread the word to those who think they are getting real info from the media. One article from one real journalist doesn't go far when you have to already be able to find out about that. I'm just an appliance driver and don't even know how to get this IE 8 to go to web sites that the pop-up blocker won't go to short of turning off the blocker since the sites referenced in the column generally have them. I know this stuff is out there as do you and Glen helps with the referrals. But talking among ourselves will never accomplish anything.

What's lost in a lot of the hysteria about "giving rights to terrorists" is that due process is required for the state to have any confidence whatsoever in whatever legal findings it is making. When due process is tossed out the window, in favor of executive branch fiat, decisions no longer are made based on an established factual basis, but rather on the basis of the political necessities of the executive branch.

Obama is more concerned about the political ramifications of appearing weak than he is about the rights of people unlawfully detained.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6632876.ece

In the fog, remember: victory is impossible in Afghanistan

It’s easy to be blinded by the valiant effort, as well as the acronyms and euphemisms. But the harsh truth does not change

Matthew Parris

It’s important not to understand. It’s important not to learn. In the total buggeration into which the world’s help for Afghanistan has now descended, it’s important not to know too much. Accept that somebody some day may understand, but it isn’t going to be you. Somebody some day may grab the Gordian knot and cut it, but it isn’t going to be us. Know only that. To know more is to know less.

[...]. The battle will ebb and flow. But victory is impossible.

I’m here as the guest of the International Security Assistance Force, which sort-of is Nato and sort-of isn’t — and, no, don’t try to resolve this: it can’t. My Isaf/ Nato hosts are welcoming and helpful; so I’ve been taking a courteous record of the many briefings by the clever chiefs they’ve been kind enough to arrange, though the swarms of acronyms began to defeat me. And yesterday I forgot my glasses. As I stared unfocused at my notes the acronyms swam forward, their small-print meanings swam away, and I saw only acronyms.

And in the meaninglessness I suddenly saw meaning. It is this. The entire operation is up its own bottom, lost in committees, strategies and initiatives. Forget what these monstrous letters stand for. Grasp, instead, the essential incoherence.

AFPAK, ANCOP, ANDS, ANP, ANSF, APPS, ASNF, AAQ/FF, APP, CARD, CDC, CISCA, CISTICA, CJTF, CN, CNPA (ANP), COMISAF, CPCC, CSOFC, CSTC, ECC, EUPOL, FDD, FTD, GPI, HIG, HIGHK, ICPT, IDLG, IGLC, INFO-OPS, IRCTA, ISAF, IU, MCN, NDCS, NDS, OCCC, OEF, OMLET, OPDIESEL, PC, PRT, SITC, UNODC, UNPOL, TB . . .

You’ll see lots of As there, sometimes standing for Afghanistan, but usually Assistance. The Fs are usually Force. Any contradiction between assistance and force is helpfully blurred by the reduction to acronyms. The infestation of Cs generally denotes Committee, Control or Command. The many Ds and Ns often stand for Drugs, National or Narcotics. Take the CJTF, which is the Criminal Justice Task Force, to be distinguished from the ANP (the Afghan National Police), partially overseen but not exactly trained by EUPOL (European Union Police something-or-other), who are not the same thing as bilateral police assistance, and who are assisted by the ASNF (the Afghan Special Narcotics Force), probably answerable to the MCN (Ministry of Counter-Narcotics) with help from the IU (Intelligence Unit), to be distinguished from SITC (the Special Intelligence and Counter Terrorism body) and operating according to the NDCS (National Drugs Control Strategy), a subset of the ANDS (Afghan National Development Strategy). If it weren’t so tragic, this would be a comic novel by Evelyn Waugh.

[...]

It’s so, so important not to understand the meaning but to hear the noise. For the curious, however, “reconciliation and reintegration” means talking to the Taleban, “lily pads” means teaching by example, and an “injector of risk” is a penalty. A “kinetic situation” is a fight.

Language says so much. The acronyms and the buzz-phrases tell you of a crazy-paving of assistance and command, with aid money leaking through the cracks in billions. It tells of baffled expatriates and aid workers — well-meaning, clever men and women — in flight from reality. It tells of an international effort chasing its own tail.

The “news” from Afghanistan this month will be of the new US commander, General Stanley McChrystal, and the surge of dollars and enthusiasm he brings. We’re meeting him soon and have been told to expect infectious optimism and crisp command. Perhaps he will persuade me that the security situation here can be stabilised. Surprising if with more than 80,000 troops it couldn’t be.`end. The devil is not in the detail. The devil is in the whole damn thing.

So take a look at the whole damn thing; see that occupying Afghanistan was a mistake; then close your mind to further argument or entreaty; because of argument and entreaty there will be no lack, but it will never be conclusive; and in the end we will have to decide. We must harden our hearts against this beautiful country and these handsome, noble, crazy people; and all the rest is noise.