June 15, 2007

In the company of a few too many Glenns.

Or maybe yesterday was ax-grinding day. I see Glenn Reynolds was going after Glenn Greenwald, who was my least favorite Glenn until I ran across the infernal Glenn Kenny, who calls his blog "In the Company of Glenn."

But let's see what the problem was yesterday with the second-worst Glenn:
I don't pay much attention, generally, but I'm stuck in a car with nothing but Technorati for company...
Judging from the camera angle in the photo, Reynolds was in the passenger seat. I thought he was blogging and driving. You could blog and drive in stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper traffic couldn't you? (I like to vlog and drive, myself.)

Back to Glenn R:
....and noticed that in one of his typically verbose efforts....
Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?
Glenn Greenwald gets around, eventually, to making two points, One is that I'm a geek, whose interest in Western culture's retreat from traditional ideas of masculinity is thus silly:
Glenn Reynolds -- who, by his own daily admission, devotes his life to attending convention center conferences on space and playing around with new, cool gadgets in the fun room in his house, like a sheltered adolescent in his secret treehouse club -- to fret: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?"
But, see, that's the point. I'm a geek. If I notice it, it's probably real. It would be like Greenwald complaining that the country was going overboard in hatred of Bush.
So Glenn G is irked that Glenn R is calling people wimps and basically says, but you're a wimp. This is great. Reminds me of that old game show "Quien Es Mas Macho."

This incites me to go over and actually read a Glenn Greenwald post, which is something I almost never do, because Glenn G brings out the ADD in me.

Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is and quotes Chris Matthews enthusing:
Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?
Now that is hilarious. (Video!) But that's Chris Matthews, and in fact, he's raising the terribly important issue of our sexual response to political candidates. As Al Gore likes to write books about: We are not rational decisionmakers in this democracy. Matthews is pointing that out in a punchy, comedic way. And he's interacting with Ana Marie Cox, who takes a comedic approach to politics.

So let's see how Glenn G dithers over it:
What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find this odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that night after night, one of the featured "journalists" of a major news network goes on television and, with some of our most prestigious journalists assembled with him, speaks admiringly about the smells and arousing masculinity and the "daddy" qualities of various political officials, and that this metric is, more or less, the full extent of his political analysis.
What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find it odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that day after day, Salon features a blogger who goes on and on in the most tedious way. In this case, he's criticizing Matthews but he's tone deaf to his comic style.... or would you think I was smart if I said the metric that is his analysis?
During the last week, when I was traveling, I spent substantial time driving in a rental car...
Glenn G can't say "last week." It's got to be "during the last week." He can't say "a long time," he has to say "substantial time."
...and thus had the opportunity to listen for large chunks of time to The Rush Limbaugh Show...
You know, Glenn G can't just "listen" to the radio, he has to have "the opportunity to listen" to the radio. So you listened to the radio? Who cares if it was last week and the car was a rental car and you were not only driving you were also traveling? It's like his little heart leaps every time he sees the opportunity to lard in a few more words, like a schoolboy assigned to write a 500-word essay.

But finally he gets to his point, which is that right-wingers are always lording it over the lefties that they are mas macho.
Virtually the entire show is now devoted to an overt celebration of masculinity -- by Rush Limbaugh -- and to claims that Democrats and liberals lack masculinity....

And just as Glenn Reynolds has done, Rush has developed a virtual obsession with the book The Dangerous Book for Boys, geared towards teaching "boys how to be boys." Rush spent the week hailing it as the antidote to what he calls the "Emasculation of America."

Identically, Reynolds on his blog has promoted the book a disturbing 17 times in the last six weeks alone. When doing so, he routinely proclaims things such as "maybe there's hope," and -- most revealingly -- has fretted: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?" ...

There are few things more disorienting than listening to Rush Limbaugh declare himself the icon of machismo and masculinity and mock others as "wimps." And if you look at those who have this obsession -- the Chris Matthews and Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldbergs and Victor Davis Hansons -- what one finds in almost every case is that those who want to convert our political process and especially our national policies into a means of proving one's "traditional masculine virtues" -- the physically courageous warriors unbound by effete conventions -- themselves could not be further removed from those attributes, and have lives which are entirely devoid of such "virtues."
Let's translate that last paragraph from Glennwaldese to plain English: No, you guys are wimps.
This is notable not merely because this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions.
Glennwaldese to English: Thinking about masculinity is emotional and we shouldn't be emotional about politics.

Why write in Glennwaldese? It's a way of making the obvious look less obvious and giving off the air of intelligence... which doesn't smell like English Leather. (It's English Leather -- a men's cologne -- not "English leather" as Glenn has it up there.) It smells like an old college dorm room.
... Rush Limbaugh ... parade[s] around as the icon of masculinity, and it ... drives him not only to dismiss -- but to overtly celebrate -- the abuses of Abu Grahib and other torture policies as just good, clean fun had by real men (like Rush, as proven by his support for it). As John McCain pointed out in the GOP debate in South Carolina, men who have actually served in the military find torture to be dishonorable, dangerous and repulsive. Only those with a throbbing need to demonstrate their masculine virtues would glibly embrace things of that sort.
Do women not exist in Glenn G's world?
This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant.
A classic Glenn Greenwald sentence if there ever was one. It's such a perfect embodiment of Glenn Greenwaldese that if he were a sitcom character his catchphrase could be "This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant." He'd be like Aunt Sassy in "Room and Bored." The other characters would be doing whatever they do and -- Aunt Sassy would say "I don't want see that" -- he'd go: "This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant."

And yes, I know, I know, war and torture are serious, so why am I writing about language and rhetoric? Because I don't have anything interesting to say about the horror of war and torture. I hate war and torture. Please note.

Back to Mr. G:
It's what causes someone like Glenn Reynolds...
What's the "it"? Scroll back. Oh, I see: it's the "dynamic." And what was the dynamic? I seem to remember that it was depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant. Scroll back more. Oh, it was "this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." So then, the pervasive craving is depressingly pervasive. Egad! I hate when things that are already pervasive become, you know, pervasive. People, listen, can't you see? It's so horrible! It's the dynamic! The pervasiveness of it is getting pervasive. I'm so depressed.

Why not use a vivid expression that retains the meaning so we don't have to scroll back? Maybe "machismo" or "phony masculinity"? Glenn G probably thinks the word "dynamic" expresses the way the desire for masculinity -- he laughably says guys crave "artificial masculinity" -- interferes with rational thought... and also that it makes his observation seem more important than it is. Why this is no mere process, it's a whole dynamic!
It's what causes someone like Glenn Reynolds -- who, by his own daily admission, devotes his life to attending convention center conferences on space and playing around with new, cool gadgets in the fun room in his house, like a sheltered adolescent in his secret treehouse club -- to fret: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?," and directly in response to that concern, to urge "more rubble, less trouble" -- meaning that he wants to watch on his television set as the U.S. military flattens neighborhoods and slaughters more people in the name of "strength," "resolve," and "power."
When you point your cursor at "more rubble, less trouble," it highlights as if there's supposed to be a link there, but clicking goes nowhere. So is that a quote from Glenn R or not?

Glenn Reynolds offers the actual context here, and it shows Glenn G's characterization to be an embarrassing distortion. Did he originally have the link and then remove it to hide his distortion? Kind of wimpy, no?

You know, I think it's really important to analyze the sexual feelings that underlie politics and warfare. I wish Glenn Greenwald would do a better job of it.

But I have two other problems:

1. Greenwald started out by mocking Chris Matthews for the analysis of sexual feeling in politics, and then he ended up analyzing sexual feelings in politics. I think he realized this was incoherent, and then, instead of rewriting his post -- why subtract when you can add? -- he just asserted: "None of this is about psychoanalyzing anyone." Get it? The thing Matthews did? Bad! The thing I just did? Must be good, cuz I did it, so different, and hence, not bad.

2. Greenwald himself is not free from the "dynamic" -- which, you might remember, is "this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." His long tirade tells us something about his feelings of masculinity, and he never examines what they are. If we are competent readers, though, we must look into that. He mocks Glenn Reynolds for talking about what a geek he is, but self-examination and self-deprecation are good -- and are not evidence of someone with a "pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." Where is Greenwald's self-examination and self-deprecation? All I ever see is self-importance and preening and condemning others as inferior, which kind of seems like a "pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations."

Hey, this dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant.

IN THE MAIL: Knoxwhirled sends lolglenn:

lolglenn

234 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234
Seven Machos said...

vrse -- You have made an ass of yourself and you leave an assclown.

I would be particularly interested to find out if you make partner at a prestigious firm, or get tenure, or do anything respectable with your life.

Do come back in 25 years or so and let us know. Not until then, though.

Fen said...

vrse: I was a second year law student when I started visiting your blog... worry that you would undermine our school's reputation.

What rubbish. You're not a law student - as your "arguments" here have demonstrated: you lack the analytical and critical thinking skills necessary to be in law school. More likely you are just another disgruntled liberal arts major. If even that.

Also, it strains credibility that any law school student would harass a professor on her own blog. The only reason you identify yourself as a "law student" is to intimidate. A real law student wouldn't advertise that he is walking the same halls as the blogger he is stalking.

So log off the computer and get back to mopping the library floor.

Seven Machos said...

I do want to add one thing: the primary job of soldiers is to kill people and to forcibly seize the property that belongs under law to others. The loony left doesn't understand this, and this is at the root of their emoting.

George W. Bush understands it. Bill Clinton understands it. (I note that neither of these people fought in a war.) That's why so many Serbians and Iraqis were killed by the American military during his presidency.

Fen said...

Why write in Glennwaldese? It's a way of making the obvious look less obvious and giving off the air of intelligence

I've often wondered how his first drafts look ...before he drowns them in the thesaurus.

Fen said...

Do you have any sons of age?

I'm beginning to embrace the chickenhawk fallacy. If you never served you're not allowed to support the war? Fine, then conversely, you're also not allowed to criticize it.

Civilian control of the armed forces? Feh. Only "citizens" who have served in the military can run for public office...

And that whole Posse Comitatus thang is so old hat. Bring the troops home to exterminate our Copperhead infestation.

Yup. I think it has alot of potential.

Fen said...

BTW Greenwald, since I know your ego has you lurking in:

If you're so anti-war, why aren't you staging hunger strikes on the steps of Congress? I only ask because I see you & your kind damning those who support the mission in Iraq but don't enlist.

So why aren't you putting your own life at risk to uphold the "principles" you claim to hold dear?

Jim said...

God you're a stupid cunt

mythusmage said...

Can anybody give me a good reason why anyone would want to trust a person who cannot distinguish between fraud and error?

Balfegor said...

Re: Fen:

What rubbish. You're not a law student - as your "arguments" here have demonstrated: you lack the analytical and critical thinking skills necessary to be in law school.

Look, not to defend the trolls here, but you must surely realise that this not a realistic portrayal of law school. Even at the very top ranked schools, I would guess a sizeable percentage, perhaps a majority, of the student body is comprised of people who ended up in law school not because of their intellects, but simply because they couldn't get a job with an English degree or a History degree or whatever. This, at least, was my experience at a top-10 school. The bar is really not set particularly high.

sinotexian said...

This guy Greenwald would have failed my high school's writing class.

Jim said...

Isn't it ironic that an admitted homosexual like Greenwald would call Glenn R and Rush
Limbaugh wimps? LMAO...

Tim said...

"And that whole Posse Comitatus thang is so old hat. Bring the troops home to exterminate our Copperhead infestation."

Well, there's an interesting though. O.k., they're always crying we're on the verge of declaring martial law for the fascists, so how does this work out? Clearly this would be a job for straightleg, light infantry, so it would only take slightly longer than it takes to transport the troops around. The boys can use bayonets to keep the collateral damage to real estate, especially university campuses, to an absolute minimum. It's not like the Copperheads are sufficiently armed to defend themselves, so heavy weaponry will be unnecessary.

As a humanitarian gesture, we can send the Code Pinkers to Saudi Arabia. Greenwald himself will surely be in this group. They'll have fun there. We shouldn't worry about them replicating themselves, as most all are aesthetically unsuitable for breeding.

Then what?

Nuclear said...

some commentor way up there :

"And on the substance, Greenwald's logic is unassailable."

Yes, it's unassailable.. but not because it's air-tight correct.. because it's un-falsifiable.

Greenwald has a steady habit of stating things in a way that not only contains its own contradiction but cannot be falsified by actual events.

For example, Greenwald is saying that the right-wing bloggers support a macho foreign policy because they are effeminate themselves. But if they were actually big burly macho men, he would just say that they are supporting a macho foreign policy because.. they're macho. Both ways, the ultimate point of the argument is that macho foreign policy is bad.

If you're saying the same thing no matter the state of the thing you're saying it about, you aren't making an argument. You're stating an opinion. Unassailable, indeed.

=darwin

Mindsteps said...

Nuclear said...

Yes, it's unassailable.. but not because it's air-tight correct.. because it's un-falsifiable.

I thought the idea of evaluating theories, hypotheses, and propositions in terms of their falsifiability has been used more in the context of determining their scientific merit. If we applied Popper's notion of falsifiability to political or legal discourse we might find that many political or legal theories and arguments do not meet the criteria of falsifiability.

An example of a non-falsifiable question might be....."Did you pull this idea about the unfalsifiability of Greenwald's arguments out of a conservative or liberal orifice?"

Nuclear said...

" If we applied Popper's notion of falsifiability to political or legal discourse we might find that many political or legal theories and arguments do not meet the criteria of falsifiability. "

So in other words.. you are agreeing with me that Greenwald's arguments have no actual foundation and cannot be refuted because of their intrinsic structure? While this may be true of "many political or legal theories" I'm not so sure this is an argument in Greenwald's favor.. ?

Pedantry about the specific scientific context of the word "falsifiability" aside, my point stands. It is impossible to refute the hypothesis of Greenwald's verbosity, which can be paraphrased as :

"War is bad mmkay! If you think war is not wholly bad, it's because you're a macho jerk or wish you could be a macho jerk!".

If the person he's talking about is not a macho jerk, then by Greenwald's logic, he obviously wants to be one. In other words, the target is a macho jerk no matter what.

If it's impossible to confirm or deny his hypothesis, what is the point of reading it? So we can feel good patting ourselves on the back that we're not macho warmongering jerks? That seems to be the appeal for most of his target audience..

you :
" "Did you pull this idea about the unfalsifiability of Greenwald's arguments out of a conservative or liberal orifice?" "

No. I observed that the structure of his arguments often results in no possible counter-arguments. This is usually an indication that the argument is not in fact an argument but simply a statement of opinion.

His "conservative bloggers are wussies who wish they could be macho jerks" hypothesis is just as transparent a conjecture as "liberal bloggers are wimps." Why should we cheerlead one conjecture and revile the other?

=darwin

James McFerran said...

Re the intellegence, race and income group of our military, instead of re-posting the leftwing's talking points, how about looking at the real stats, queried as "military demographics":

usmilitary.about.com/.webloc
www.heritage.org/.webloc
www.rcnv.org/.webloc

Next, there are many of us that have children of combat age of which we are proud to say volunteered for service. One daughter in her second (voluntary) tour in Iraq, and a son in the Coast Guard. I am very proud of both of them.

Finally, the real word on commitment to our efforts in Iraq are very visible in the record high retention rates of Iraq veterans, and their volunteering for multiple tours. This is the reality: those with their actual lives on the line are volunteering to keep up the work they are doing, despite the risks. What do they know about our success that is not getting through to some of you?

If those of you that think we should pull out of Iraq now, please note the latest happenings in the Gaza strip to see the future of Iraq without our support.

Please visit the real world as soon as possible.
Jim

Fen said...

I observed that the structure of his arguments often results in no possible counter-arguments.

Yes. Greenwald is a sophist & puppeteer.

James McFerran said...

Sorry, previous links did not paste correctly. Try these:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm

These should work!
Jim

Fen said...

Dan But if one wants to practice mock outrage and avoid the substance of Greenwald's post

It always comes down to this. Its the substance of Greenwald thats being unfairly ignored.

Hey Dan, would you please distill the substance down to 100 words?

Methadras said...

So Ann, does this blog entry now elevate your status from 'complaining' about thrusting breasts to 'complaining' about guys named Glenn?

Mindsteps said...

Nuclear wrote: So in other words.. you are agreeing with me that Greenwald's arguments have no actual foundation and cannot be refuted because of their intrinsic structure? While this may be true of "many political or legal theories" I'm not so sure this is an argument in Greenwald's favor.. ?

I am agreeing with you. If, however, you believe that Greenwald's magical thinking differs from the structure (if you want to call it that) employed by almost all blogger pundits because of his particular political bent, I take exception. I can point out the core unfalsifiability in many of the arguments made by Glenn R. as well as Glenn G. Are Greenwald's assertions any more or less falsifiable than say Reynold's or Althouse's or Krugman's? The legal system has established a standard in terms of evaluating the rigor of alleged scientific evidence. Should we employ that standard as well when assessing Greenwald's blog....and if so, should we limit it to his blog?

I would suggest that if we were to use a scientific standard to evaluate the assertions of Krugman, Reynolds, Greenwald, or Kristol you would find them all to engage in imprecise, mushy arguments that render their supposed assertions or hypotheses unfalsifiable. The notion of falsifiability has been employed primarily in the scientific context. Are you suggesting that individuals and governments should employ a more scientific standard in making political and policy arguments and decisions? Think of the ramifications of relying more on a scientific method when it comes to national and international decision making. Would we be where we are today?

Tully said...

Hey Dan, would you please distill the substance down to 100 words?

I can do it in SEVEN.

"Greenwald pays his ego by the word."

Any lower bidders?

AlphaLiberal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AlphaLiberal said...

It's kind of sad to see Ann continuing to pick a fight with Glenn Greenwald to jack up her ratings.

Ann seems to accuse Glenn Grenwald of ignoring women. But Greenwald has engaged a bloggy publlic exchange with Ann Althouse, woman.

So, she starts this post with a lie, "Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is." (Greenwald never says this and Althouse's rebuttal is nonsensical.)

Then, she's pushing the line that Greenwald won't deal with women when he's dealt with her, by blowing her arguments and political grandstanding to smithereens. Like that time he nailed her poorly written NYT op-ed.

So, yeah, Annie's got an ax to grind.

Kirk said...

Tully, I've got you beat:





Your offering, though true enough, is the meta content--in this case, a claim about GG's motivation for writing. But as to the actual content, I think I've got it down to an entire zero words.

AlphaLiberal said...

I meant to post a link showing Glenn Greenwald does not ignore women.

Reading through there, you'll find cause for Annie's animus.

Tully said...

Kirk,

I concede!

ethan said...

Ann Althouse has hot, hot fucking sweet titties.

Aero! said...

Glenn Reynolds says Glenn Greenwald is bad, so Ann has to go on and on about it.

What exactly is the point of working years to become an actual respected legal academic if then you just end up washing the feet of some jackass who teaches Space Law?

Trevor said...

Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?
Brevity is for wankers.

Fraud Guy said...

I feel the need to correct the inaccuracies that ended the OT thread on WWII.

SGT Ted said:

FDR knew war was coming. Congress didn't. But when Pearl Harbor was attacked, they rallied around him and the nation. Leftists like you were against that war too until Hitler betrayed Stalin. Then they were all for the previously "Imperial War" they had been denouncing before.

How's that for some history?


Revisionist.

Republicans were the leaders against Roosevelt's plans to prepare for the coming war.

And the declaration of war against Hitler came not after he invaded the Soviet Union (in June '41) but after Hitler declared war on on us after his Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor.

So maybe it is ok for the US to declare war on the observedly largest military opportunist at the time (who had invaded or co-opted almost all of its neighbors at the time), and which had just declared war on the US.

Nuclear said...

mindsteps (if you're still here..) :
"

If, however, you believe that Greenwald's magical thinking differs from the structure (if you want to call it that) employed by almost all blogger pundits because of his particular political bent, I take exception. I can point out the core unfalsifiability in many of the arguments made by Glenn R. as well as Glenn G. Are Greenwald's assertions any more or less falsifiable than say Reynold's or Althouse's or Krugman's?
"


I think that pundits on "both" sides engage in this type of sophistry with some great frequency. What bothers me about Greenwald in particular is that he goes through all of the motions of making a logical based ("scientific") argument and does not seem to recognize where his opinions are, in fact, just opinions. Obviously every argument contains elements "over which reasonable men might disagree." Greenwald does not appear to feel that way about his own arguments. This is an asset in the legal profession, but as useful commentary it's the pits.

When someone claims that his views are reasonably provisional and then writes as if no other view is possible, it rankles me. If all he has to say (after parsing) is "supporting this war in any way is bad, because this war is bad" or "nobody who says anything 'pro-government' about the war in Iraq can be believed, no matter what" then why bother reading him? Those sorts of cluelessly maximalist statements can be heard at any party full of hip undergrads.. I certainly don't need Greenwald to spend 10k words dressing it up in pseudo-scientific BS.

It might entertain his audience, and that is probably his primary motivation.. but this does not render it coherent insight into the issue at hand.

Thanks for the follow up, and not assuming that I am a knee-jerk wingnut because I disapprove of Greenwald's rhetorical style. It's gross on the right, and it's gross on the left. It's just plain gross.

=darwin

David said...

Althouse: Greenwald uses big words and lots of them, and I have a problem with that. Plus he says things differently from the way I would say them, things like “during the last week” instead of “last week.” So he must be a little jerk.

Althouse chorus: You’re right, Ann, and we know he must engage in sock-puppetry too, because somebody, somewhere said so, and said he could prove it, too.

Althouse: And besides, all Greenwald is saying is “No, you guys are wimps” and “Thinking about masculinity is emotional and we shouldn't be emotional about politics.”

Althouse chorus: You’re right, Ann, plus he’s a faggot and a sock-puppet.

Althouse: And he doesn’t know any women.

Nuclear/ mindsteps and the others in the bogus “falsifiability” discussion: Greenwald writes his columns in such a way that they imply that the arguments or points of view of those who do not agree with him lack merit. How irritating.

Wow, it’s hard to believe that people devote that much time and energy to such discussion. I guess it’s better that you do that than for you to go out and make some real trouble. Seriously, if you cannot figure out what Greenwald is saying (and it is not the summations that Althouse has provided), you must have ADD, or you are just dumb. My take: Glenn finds it annoying that the mainstream press (e.g., Chris Matthews) focus more on the ephemera of media politics (e.g., Fred Thompson’s manliness) than the policies that these politicians would actually pursue. It was this attention to “image” that led to the election of the worst president ever. Plus, Glenn apparently believes that macho strutting (e.g., “Bring it on!”) is one of the reasons why we are involved in the worst foreign policy mistake we have ever made. So he finds it ironic that the MSM would play up this kind of macho silliness, while many of the right-wing bloggers and pundits who support this ghastly mistake are not particularly manly or what one would call warrior material. And since he knows he is correct on the war and the MSM’s fascination with “manliness,” he writes his piece in such a way that precludes any correctness on the part of those who disagree with him. What’s wrong with that? Is this so hard to fathom?

register said...

I browse through this site and Greenwald's occasionally, and there's no doubt in my mind that Greenwald is regularly nailing the big issues while this site, as evidenced by these posts, is arguing about angels on the head of a pin. Ann, your post on this subject sets a tone of superiority and pedanticism that attacts those who would rather blog anonymously that participate in, and take responsibility, for citizenship. I hope you enjoy the company of the sycophants you attract; I believe in the long run you'll find that you all deserve one another.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234   Newer› Newest»