When are you guys going to start cleaning the spam out of the old threads?

I suggest that if you aren't going to maintain all those old comment threads that you just lock them out. That way, your readers won't be vulnerable to the sort of cross-site script attacks that one of your tech writers warned about a few months ago.

Right -- because you have treated your commenters to date with such respect.

Spare us the sanctimonious lectures. We are not your kids. Start acting like an editor and a newspaper and an ombudsman that care about getting the story right.

And that care about correcting the story when you get it wrong.

Commenters to this blog are the least of your problems as an editor. And you should know that. Your "troubles" have been of your own making. Yours and Ms. Howell's.

Could I comment on your editorial board once again kissin' the a** of the Bush administration?

I think it would be great if every article and column of every online paper had a reader talk back loop such as this attached. Often reader comments are more interesting than the original article or editorial and I think it would create some balance. I can't tell you how many times I've read an article and been frustrated that the writer led with the administration's spin and either completely left out the "yeah, but . . ." or buried it in the last paragraph where most casual readers would never find it.

I second that I would also like to see the spam or troll posts designed to throw cold water on a good discussion deleted.

Where's the "removal request" button for things that Washington Post employees, writers, and columnists write that are personal attacks and/or taunting and/or wrong and/or lies?

I wish the Washington Post would spend as much time and effort worring about their own credibility as they do their readers.

We have to read blogs to get to the truth.

Might as well turn this site into a blog, so the readers can filter the bs into the truth.

A suggestion to the local government agencies in Washington DC and New York City. I read with horror that DHS, cut your funding. I saw the second plane hit the tower, so this is personal to me, but I am a businessman and therefore practical.
We have a budget shortfall and it needs to be made up. So, henceforth no local police protection to any diplomat, politician or spouse of same. This means no more tying up police officers for the NYPD while some politicians wife shops on Madison Avenue in NYC. This means no more police blocking traffic so that a politician can get to a fundraiser dinner. The delay in traffic keeping the common man from getting home early to have dinner with their kids.

I know it won't make up the entire budget shortfall but it should help.

Also, one thing about the new blog rules. This is more of a question than a comment.
Is it a violation of someone's privacy when a newspaper or tv station puts up a picture of someone accussed of a crime? I'm thinking of those Duke Students or the scientist who The Post was all to happy to report was a person of interest in the anthrax story that seems long forgotten. Just wondering its been awhile since journalism class for me.

In an article that's lost in the wilderness that is the WaPo online, Andrew Cohen wrote this:

"The learning curve is tremendous. And no post I've done since I've started proved that point more than the post I did on Monday afternoon-- Memorial Day-- when I wrote about Kimberly Dozier and the attack that wounded her and killed two other CBS News colleagues. People are still commenting on that post four days later and the surprise for me hasn't been that people are passionate about the topic. It's been the fact that people have been so willing to stray far afield from the scope of the original post-- sorrow for fallen comrades-- to touch upon distant issues they feel they need to express. The lesson for me is that these blogs, and the posts which constitute them, are really gateways-- or maybe venues- into and through which these sorts of dialogues pass."

I have yet to see the full article, so it's possible that Mr. Cohen has some "gotcha" hidden in the remaining text, but it looks like he gets the idea of a blog better than some people, like the executive editor of this blog, who have been working in this medium for years.

And while we're conducting "personal attacks", I'd like to point out, again, that it would be most helpful if you guys could support either the BLOCKQUOTE or CITE HTML tags so that we can set off quotes from our own words more visibly. As you can see, we've been including quotes anyway, so you're not discouraging the practice by not having those tags. I'd just like a better way of setting those quotes off from my own words. By the way, Mr. Brady, Firedoglake is way ahead of you guys in this area. They support both of those tags. Are you going to let Jane Hamsher show you up yet again?

Speaking of personal lives, is it true Laura and W are having marital problems? Karma for the Clintons? LOL.

Hey Peter, how's the kool-aid?

Concerning your editorial "Terrorists Target Milwaukee!"...

Your reaction to Secretary Chertoff's disbursements borders on the very disgruntled, if not the shrill.

True, NY and DC are areas for protection but, in the area of defending the whole of society, fundamentals come first. Hence, one looks at securing the water supply, the food supply and the power supply -- before venturing into discretionary and/or unnecessary expense.

Recall that al-Qaeda's avowed aim is the destruction of the American economy. You don't get that by blowing up a White House, or even a Statue of Liberty. The far greater risk is found where the three basics are concentrated.

Sure, you'll get wastage and misappropriation of funds; that only means stronger oversight and accountability is
required.

And our Republican Congress has such a strong history of oversight and holding the executive branch accountable. Not.

When are you going to support threads in the blog comments?

Has the NYT's Walter Duranty Award been made a Traveling award? It seems that Mr. Vick at the WaPo has won this years very early on, with his recent kiss to the Iranian president. Please let us know where it will be next year. We missed the notice that the WaPo was in the running and were wondering if you will be making a regular run at winning it annually or perhaps to take it over altogether.

I really am trying to be sympathetic to Lara B who wrote "What If There is No Plan B? but can't muster sympathy for someone who cannot accept responsibility for her own decisions and choices.

I am trying hard to figure out where exactly it is Bush's fault Lara had to murder her unborn child. Was it when SHE forgot to use her diaphragm? Was it when SHE decided to use the abortion pill? Was it when her doctor has no appointments available to see her, therefore she decided the child she was carrying was unneeded and unnecessary? Was it when the FDA decided that it would make sex for those other than her seem more acceptable? I just don't get it.

One word Lara: adoption.
Not abortion. You made the choice.

Has anyone heard anything about the tremendous increase in foot problems (Athletes foot, and a new strain of incurable fungi) stemming from airline passengers having to take their shoe off while being scaned for bombs? My problems arose shortly after my first flight and have been a constant irritation ever since. At some point the citizens of this country are going to have to ask themselves, when is the Government's and Homeland Security's scare tactics going to impede upon our personnel freedoms to the point we say enough is enough. Security is one thing, terrorizing for the sake of controle is another. Perhaps we will have to cripple a generation of our nations children to come to grips with the fact, to much security is indeed a bad thing. After all what does the term "Maximum Security" bring to your mind?
__________________________________________________

Hello, Melissa.

It was when the administration politicized science. The morning pill is safe. A grown woman should be able to get it over the counter without a prescription and anyone who wanted to reduce the number of abortions might see the logic in it. But if your agenda is to keep women in their place and punish them for having sex, making access to a morning after pill very difficult makes a lot of sense, reduced number of abortions notwithstanding. If abortion is against your religion, don't have one. Any state that gives majority rule the power to outlaw an abortion, gives majority rule the power to mandate one as well. Think about that.

PLEASE put Andrew Cohen's link on the front page of your website. His blog is very interesting and gets scant attention because there's no link except on the pulldown menu. He's better than that.

Hello, Melissa.

1. RU486 has been linked to a number of deaths, so no, I wouldn't catagorize it as safe.

2. An abortion pill is still an abortion, so tell me how it limits abortions?

3. I have no agenda, but I wonder why women in particualr cannot see they have the power to save lives by taking responsibility for their own actions. Personal responsiblity doesn't go out the window when no morning after pill is not available.

4. Majority rule is mob rule. It is pretty common sense that unless you want to create life you become proactive...hence the term prophalactic.

(Main Entry: 1pro·phy·lac·tic
Pronunciation: "prO-f&-'lak-tik also "prä-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek prophylaktikos, from prophylassein to be on guard, from pro- before + phylassein to guard, from phylak-, phylax guard
1 : guarding from or preventing disease
2 : tending to prevent or ward off : PREVENTIVE)

This is all pretty common sense stuff.

Why has the Washington Post fail to report that the American Bar Association has voted unanimously to investigate the egality of President Buhs use of more than 750 signing statements to avoid following duly adopted laws of our land.
Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe originally broke the story last month about Bush's 750 signing statements, more than all previous presidents combined. as reported, these signing statments allow Bush to ignore McCain's anti-torture law, avoid congressional oversight of the USAPatriot Act, and harass whistle blowers in the executive branch. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairmen Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced hearings on the president's use of signing statements.

HELLO.....Where are you on this story Washington Post??

To the anonymous poster.

RU486 is not the same medication as Plan B.

And it is all a matter of degree, anon. There is a difference between a morning after pill that prevents implantation in the wall of the uterus and an abortion, just like there is a difference between a few cells in a petri dish, or a fetus, or a baby. What is the difference between not letting a fertilized egg implant and not letting the sperm reach the egg with a prophylactic? And if we want to go there, it would seem that abstinance only is against God's design, too. That ought to tie the Catholic church in a knot.

Here's a classic linky from one of my favorites at Four Right Wing Wackos. Go argue your point with them, if you can handle it.
------------------------------------------
My God, these people vote?

Go check out a fisking by Misha over at the Rottweiler, the subject of which is an op-ed post about how President Bush made a woman have an abortion.

You think I'm kidding?
------------------------------------------
"It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place."

"I had sex, and now I'm pregnant, and the President himself won't let me get the Morning-After Pill, and so I had to have an abortion!"
-------------------------------------------
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Christ on a crutch! Let's go over this really quickly, since The Emperor did such a great job.

A woman in her 40's. Married. Doesn't want any more kids. "Forgets" to put her diaphram in before sex, and now has to deal with the consequences.

NEWS FLASH! SEX LEADS TO PREGNANCY! If you haven't ensured that you can't have kids (i.e. tubal legation or vasectomy) you stand a good chance of getting knocked up! And lets count the different types of birth control, shall we?

1 - the afore mentioned diaphram (which she was too horny to use)
2 - Condoms
3 - IUD's
4 - Birth control pills
5 - Birth control patch
6 - Depo shot
7 - Norplant
8 - Spermacidal sponge

Eight different types of birth control, right off the top of my head, which this woman and her husband were either too stupid or too lazy to use. And if you're in your forties, and you don't want any more kids, why the hell don't you just get snipped? Either him or her, doesn't matter, it works either way!

So in short, this woman, through her own stupidity and negligence, refused to use the birth control she had, and got herself knocked up. And rather than bring life into the world, she chose to have an abortion.

And she blames President Bush for it.

They're insane. Loony. Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs. Off their rocker. Competely detached from reality. Unable to comprehend the basic facts of life, and yet these mental retards ARE VOTING!

God help us all.

Read on...(RD)
------------------------------------------

"Bush Made Me F**k My Husband!"
Filed under: Idiotarians
You think we're kidding? We're not

Every once in a while, an Idiotarian will issue a bleating, plaintive call so irresistible that we just have to rack the old Imperial ClueMossberg™ and have our wicked ways with it, even if it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Very, very dumb fish, mind you.
-----------------------------------------
"The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want. Well, not literally, but let me explain."
------------------------------------------
We can't hardly wait, Dana L. of the Washington Compost, so do carry on. And on. And on and on and on, as those of very little brain are wont to do.
------------------------------------------
"I am a 42-year-old happily married mother of two elementary-schoolers. My husband and I both work, and like many couples, we're starved for time together. One Thursday evening this past March, we managed to snag some rare couple time and, in a sudden rush of passion, I failed to insert my diaphragm."
------------------------------------------
And this was, of course, Bush's fault. No, not the sudden rush of passion we're sure, but the fact that you "failed" to insert your diaphragm. Heaven knows that in these days of horrible, no-holds-barred capitalism, it's almost impossibly hard to find the time to insert one of those. Which is, of course, Bush's fault. After all, if it weren't for all of those dastardly "tax cuts for the rich" boosting the economy like crazy, we'd all be sitting around on our duffs with more than enough time for things like that.
-----------------------------------------
"The next morning, after getting my kids off to school, I called my ob/gyn to get a prescription for Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent a pregnancy -- but only if taken within 72 hours of intercourse."
------------------------------------------
You mean "abortion", right? Yes, we know that you don't want to call it that, which is why you've thought up this frightfully clever "Plan B" euphemism, but that's what it is. Sure, it doesn't involve all of those yucky surgical implements and no doctors are involved, you just pop a pill and squirt the nasty little inconvenience out, but still. Chopping up the unborn in the womb and sucking them out with a vacuum would be "Plan C", then, and partially giving birth to them, jamming a pair of scissors into their heads and sucking out their brains would be "Plan D", we presume?

But we digress. The main thing is that it was Bush's fault that you forgot to insert your diaphragm, right?
-------------------------------------------
"As we're both in our forties, my husband and I had considered our family complete, and we weren't planning to have another child, which is why, as a rule, we use contraception."
-----------------------------------------
Unless you're caught up in a moment of sudden passion, of course, in which case you just forget about those pesky rules and blame Bush later, right?
-----------------------------------------
"I wanted to make sure that our momentary lapse didn't result in a pregnancy."
-----------------------------------------
But you didn't want it enough to actually follow your own rules, obviously, which is all Bush's fault.
------------------------------------------
"The receptionist, however, informed me that my doctor did not prescribe Plan B."
----------------------------------------
So you found another doctor, right? Or did you blame Bush?
-----------------------------------------
"No reason given. Neither did my internist. The midwifery practice I had used could prescribe it, but not over the phone, and there were no more open appointments for the day. The weekend -- and the end of the 72-hour window -- was approaching."
-----------------------------------------
Which was Bush's fault, of course. Damn him and his Busherian Calendar with all of its ever-approaching weekends.
-----------------------------------------
"But I needed to meet my kids' school bus and, as I was pretty much out of options -- short of soliciting random Virginia doctors out of the phone book -- I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best."
-----------------------------------------
One can only wonder where in the world this school bus you were supposed to meet was driving, considering how it kept you forever from staying within your 72-hour window and even using the telephone directory to find another doctor. Damn that Bush! Far be it from us to even suggest that you were simply too damn lazy to make an effort. After all, pregnancy is a serious matter and not something to be left to "hoping for the best", right?
-----------------------------------------
"After all, I'm 42. Isn't it likely my eggs are overripe, anyway? I thought so, especially since my best friend from college has been experiencing agonizing infertility problems at this age."
-----------------------------------------
Nothing like anecdotal evidence from a random friend to substitute for a medical license. Especially when you have a school bus to catch and only 72 hours in which to do so. We can always blame Bush later.
------------------------------------------
"Weeks later, the two drugstore pregnancy tests I took told a different story. Positive. I couldn't believe it."
-----------------------------------------
Nor should you. The test was obviously run on one of those infamous Diebold machines that Rove and Bush invented.
------------------------------------------
"I'm still in good health, but unlike the last time I was pregnant, nearly a decade ago, I'm now taking three medications. One of them, for high cholesterol, is in the Food and Drug Administration's Pregnancy Category X -- meaning it's a drug you shouldn't take if you're expecting or even planning to get pregnant."
-----------------------------------------
Thankfully, it doesn't say that it's one of those drugs you shouldn't take if you're too horny and/or stupid to remember inserting your diaphragm, which instantly absolves you of any responsibility. You should probably sue the company for not remembering to include that warning on the label. You undoubtedly will too, unless you decide to sue Bush instead.
------------------------------------------
"I worried because the odds of having a high-risk pregnancy or a baby born with serious health issues rise significantly after age 40."
------------------------------------------
Oh, sure you did, Mother Theresa. It had absolutely nothing to do with you not feeling up to taking responsibility for your own actions or, in this case, inaction. It was Bush's fault, after all.
----------------------------------------
"And I thought of the emotional upheavals that an unplanned pregnancy would cause our family."
-----------------------------------------
That's a nice way of saying "I didn't really need all the hassle of having a child around, so I decided to kill it and throw it in the garbage instead" without actually, you know, saying so.
------------------------------------------
"My husband and I are involved in all aspects of our children's lives, but even so, we feel we don't get enough time to spend with them as it is."
-----------------------------------------
Somebody nominate this woman for sainthood, right about f*****g now! There's not a dry seat in the theatre as she proclaims her undying devotion to spending every single available free moment in her life to her children. Well, as long as it doesn't interfere with those sudden rushes of passion where her and her husband are too busy screwing like minks to bother with contraception, that is.
------------------------------------------
"I felt sick."
------------------------------------------
Morning sickness. Quite common, actually. And it's all Bush's fault.
----------------------------------------
"Although I've always been in favor of abortion rights, this was a choice I had hoped never to have to make myself."
----------------------------------------
Don't you just love those self-righteous pricks who are all in favor of some nasty practice that they, in a blatant display of double standards and crass hypocrisy, support completely as long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty?

Neither do we.
------------------------------------------
"When I realized the seriousness of my predicament, I became angry.

"I can't believe it! I can't be pregnant!"
-------------------------------------------
"Dammit! This makes me SOOOO angry! It's all Bush's fault!"

Welcome to stage two.
-----------------------------------------
"I knew that Plan B, which could have prevented it, was supposed to have been available over the counter by now."
------------------------------------------
If it wasn't for the pesky little fact that the way our society works had somehow delayed the process that was "supposed to" have been all done by now. Supposed to according to Dana, of course. Because she needed it, and that makes her the most important person in the whole wide world. Damn that Bush!
-----------------------------------------
"But I also remembered hearing that conservative politics have held up its approval."
-----------------------------------------
Not quite, as Rick Moran points out. But, all that aside, we certainly understand how outrageous it is for conservative politics to prevail in a country that, according to every election since 2000 at least, is predominantly conservative.
-------------------------------------------
"My anger propelled me to get to the bottom of the story."
------------------------------------------
To think what all of this passion could have propelled you to do if you'd been in possession of it back when you and your husband decided to have it on like a pair of bunnies OD'ing on Viagra and no, there's definitely nothing wrong with that. Nothing whatsoever. Why, it might even have provided you with the massive amounts of energy and physical exertion required to insert your diaphragm!
-----------------------------------------
"It turns out that in December 2003, an FDA advisory committee, whose suggestions the agency usually follows, recommended that the drug be made available over the counter, or without a prescription. Nonetheless, in May 2004, the FDA top brass overruled the advisory panel and gave the thumbs-down to over-the-counter sales of Plan B, requesting more data on how girls younger than 16 could use it safely without a doctor's supervision.

Apparently, one of the concerns is that ready availability of Plan B could lead teenage girls to have premarital sex."
------------------------------------------
Certainly not one of the FDA's concerns, but let's not allow facts to get in the way of a perfectly pathetic excuse for personal irresponsibility. The only thing the FDA was concerned about was the possible consequences to the health of young women and that they didn't believe that it had been explored thoroughly enough. That's their job, you know, whether you agree with it or not.

To be sure, there were groups, NOT the FDA, that were arguing that it would lead to more promiscuous behavior. That's because they were employing a long-forgotten, now alien concept called "logic." You see, if you make it easier to avoid the consequences of pleasant, but risky, behavior, it invariably follows that more people will engage in it. It's not all that hard to grasp. Unless you went to a publik skool, that is, in which case you can be forgiven for being unable to stick a twig in a turd without breaking both. But the FDA had zero to do with it.
------------------------------------------
"Yet this concern -- valid or not -- wound up penalizing an over-the-hill married woman for having sex with her husband. Talk about the law of unintended consequences."
------------------------------------------
Maybe they thought that not-so-over-the-hill married women would be old and responsible enough to use contraception if they didn't want to get pregnant? Don't blame the FDA for overestimating the intelligence of the public in general, although it can be argued that they ought to have known better.
-----------------------------------------
"By late August 2005, the slow action over Plan B led the director of the FDA's Office on Women's Health to resign her post. The agency's delay on the drug, she wrote in an e-mail to her colleagues, "runs contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health.""
------------------------------------------
That's a funny position. "Funny" as in "did somebody jam scissors into her skull and suck out her brains at birth?" Fully and thoroughly investigating the effects and, more importantly, side-effects of a drug before releasing it for general over-the-counter consumption "runs contrary to improving and advancing women's health?"

It must have been Bush's orbital mindrays destroying her brain.
-----------------------------------------
"As recently as April 7, Steven Galson, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said that the agency still needed time to work on the issue."
-------------------------------------------
Bloody bastards! How dare they refuse to rush a product through the process without fully evaluating it first? Hey, if it later turned out that something was wrong with it, the general public could always sue the pharmaceutical companies, right?
-----------------------------------------
"Unfortunately, time was the one thing I didn't have."
-----------------------------------------
"Me. Me. MemememememememeMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME. MEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
------------------------------------------
"Meanwhile, I hadn't even been able to get Plan B with a prescription that Friday, because in Virginia, health-care practitioners apparently are allowed to refuse to prescribe any drug that goes against their beliefs."
-----------------------------------------
And apparently, in Virginia, over-the-hill married women are incapable of finding a doctor without those beliefs within 72 hours.

Which, of course, is Bush's fault.
-----------------------------------------
"Although I had heard of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control on religious grounds, I was dumbfounded to find that doctors could do the same thing."
-------------------------------------------
Damn those doctors for presuming to have a say in what's best for their patients! That's what pharmacists are for!

Of course, it could be that the doctor in question believed, based on the years of school and practice that you most emphatically DON'T have (and pharmacists neither), that the drug might be harmful and he didn't much feel like prescribing something that he was convinced might harm his patients.

First, do no harm.

DAMN that Bushocrates!!!
------------------------------------------
"Moreover, they aren't even required to tell the patient why they won't provide the drug."
------------------------------------------
Did you ask? Or were you too busy trying to catch that school bus in Nepal to do so?
------------------------------------------
"Nor do they have to provide a list of alternative sources."
-----------------------------------------
They're doctors, not f*****g telephone directories or "Drug Shopping for Dummies" books. You would think that people feeling that strongly about a pill would somehow be able to find it in themselves to DO THEIR OWN F*****G WORK. Oh, and did you ASK?
-----------------------------------------
"I had asked the ob-gyn's receptionist if politics was the reason the doctor wouldn't prescribe Plan B for me. She refused to answer or offer any reason, no matter how much I pressed her."
-----------------------------------------
So you did ask? Good for you. At least you cared enough about your own predicament to bother doing that, right before you gave up because you had a school bus parked in the Kuyper Belt that you needed to catch.

Here's a helpful hint: If you want to know what the doctor's reasons are, you might want to ask for the doctor. You were talking to a receptionist, not a White House Press Secretary. Not that Tony would have answered either. It's all his boss Bush's fault, after all.
------------------------------------------
"By the time I got on the phone with my internist's office and found that he would not fill a Plan B prescription either, I figured it was a waste of time to fight with the office staff."
-----------------------------------------
You'd already asked one person that day, after all, so your duty to your own health was done. It's not like it was a big deal or anything. Unless you happened to be the baby beginning to grow inside of you, of course. At any rate, there was a school bus in orbit around a rock out in the Oort Cloud that you needed to catch.
------------------------------------------
"To this day, I don't know why my doctors wouldn't prescribe Plan B -- whether it was because of moral opposition to contraception or out of fear of political protesters or just because they preferred not to go there."
------------------------------------------
And to this day, you didn't bother to find out. You just assumed that it was all Bush's fault instead.
------------------------------------------
"In any event, they were also partly responsible for why I was stuck that Friday, and why I was ultimately forced to confront the decision to terminate my third pregnancy."
------------------------------------------
Bush AND your doctors were to blame for you failing to insert your diaphragm?

Now, we'll freely admit to not knowing the full extent of a President and/or a doctor's reponsibilities, but we feel that we're on fairly firm ground when we say that none of them have to do with diving between the legs of 40-something-year-old hausfraus caught up in a "rush of passion" in order to insert their diaphragms for them in a timely and responsible fashion.

But it's always somebody else's fault, right?

F*****g Baby-Boomer Wankers.

She then goes into a long, tiresome and utterly stupid jeremiad about how impossibly difficult it was for her to Google "Planned Parenthood" in order to have her inconvenience disposed of, followed by even more heartbreakingly stupid nonsense that is just too unbearably cliched to bother Fisking. Read it if you're in the mood to drive splinters under your fingernails...
-----------------------------------------
"It was a decision I am sorry I had to make. It was awful, painful, sickening. But I feel that this administration gave me practically no choice but to have an unwanted abortion because the way it has politicized religion made it well-nigh impossible for me to get emergency contraception that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place."
-----------------------------------------
...because the first and foremost of ANY Administration's responsibilities is to provide everybody with anything they could possibly find themselves wanting at the drop of a hat, of course.

"Emergency contraception?"

You might want to look up the last word, you insufferable, whining dumbass sack of wasted DNA.

No, we won't make you do that. You may have a school bus you need to catch, so here's the Cliff's Notes version:

It means, translated, "something that PREVENTS conception."

It doesn't mean "something that terminates an unwanted conception."

That's called "abortion."

But how would you know? You're a lawyer, after all.
-----------------------------------------
"And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years."
------------------------------------------
Or they could just practice either abstinence or safe sex. The former is the surest way of avoiding unwanted pregnancies, but we'll be the first to admit that it's the most boring one as well.

Whichever they choose, we hope that they, unlike you Baby-Boomer Spoiled F**ktards, realize that the consequences of their actions and/or inactions are their responsibility and not the responsibility of whatever Administration happens to be in office at the time.

We hope so but, given the deplorable state of our self-centered, whiny society, we can't say that we expect it.

F**khead.

Idiotarians
Posted by Emperor Darth Misha I @ 9:23 pm |

//"Here's a classic linky from one of my favorites at Four Right Wing Wackos."//

Let me guess, you're white and you're male and you've never had a doctor treat you for something that was preventable. Sorry, in the market place of ideas, Four Right Wing Wackos is a definite turn off.

Jinky, you just cut and paste an article that calls people you disagree with "idiotarians" and a bunch of other names, and seems, as far as I bothered reading, to offer no valid points, and then tell us to go argue with them?

I don't know if you're male or not, but you certainly have no mind to call your own.

John Pomfret's article "An Increasingly Deadly Trail" is exemplary and he should receive one "attaboy" or gold star whichevery is appropriate.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate George Will on his column, "25 Years of Deadly Lessons." It is, without a doubt, the most perfect example of one-handed typing to see print. One could almost see the sweat glistening on Mr. Will's brow as he lovingly typed in his purple-prose depiction of the "human rectum." Kinda makes you wonder if, when the first Mrs. Will threw George's clothes out onto the lawn, the object of her despair was really another woman...

I am in full agreement with "Melissa" (June 5 comment) who unsuccessfully tried to muster some sympathy for Lara B., the woman who found herself in the midst of an unwanted pregnancy. Lara, your article's finger pointing and blame-shifting does not reflect well on your abilities as an attorney or your role as a mature adult. You simply portray yourself as an adolescent who realized, too late, that there ARE consequences to irresponsible behavior. Perhaps you could earn some compassion from more of your readers if you took a larger portion of the blame.

Re: What If There Is No Plan B"...

So. A female, 40-something attorney in Virginia does the wild thing with hubby and - oops !! - pregnancy follows. She uses contraception "as a rule" (whatever that may mean), desires no additional children, takes cholesterol medication known to adversely impact pregnant women, and indicates neither she nor her spouse has been 'fixed'. Oh, and she failed to use her diaphragm.

Clearly the culprit in this scenario is...wait for it....Chimpy McPretzelchoker !

Obviously Dubya failed to order DOD to re-engineer the diaphragm into a new breed of plastic wonder-weapon: a semen-seeking drone whose flight characteristics enable it to catapult out of the box unaided, lock onto target females, and fly-by-wire unerringly into the vagina of every synapse-challenged whiner that chose passion over responsibility.

BUSH-HITLER !

If Dana L. is representative of attorneys practicing in Virginia, I begin to doubt her clients' chances against the law, and pray they look good in stripes.

Your article regarding the lack of enforcement on HIPAA regulations was great. I would like to point out, however, for the government to enforce HIPAA, the government would be required to actually punish the same people that authored HIPAA and are behind this invasion of medical privacy. The National Committee on Health & Vital Statistics is the "committee" that pretty much controls the U.S. Secretary of Health and tells him what to do. It was this committee that removed the patients' right of consent and opened our records up to thousands and thousands of entities that are in it for the money. Many of the "uses" HIPAA opened our records for have nothing to do with actual health care. This committee is working on putting our records, against the patients' will and without consent, on the internet for all to use, including government, marketers, fundraisers, researchers, schools, employers, insurance companies, data collecting companies, and so on and so on. They are calling it the National Health Information Infrastructure. Bush recently signed an agreement with China to share medical information.

This committee is made up entirely of representatives of those same companies that are after our private records to make money. There is not one single committee member that represents the patient. The chairman of the committee represents Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser Permanente was the same organization that was fined last year by California for illegally posting patients records on a website. Kaiser Permanente was the same organization that was dumping the mentally ill, old patients on skid row. They didn't even bother to change the patients out of their hospital gowns. The CEO of Kaiser Permanente makes several million a year. That is a pretty steep salary for a Not-for-Profit organization. Why do you think Kaiser Permanente is on this Committee? These committee members are out to promote their corporations' profit at the patients' expense. They don't care about the patient. They just care about their own profit. Having these corporate representatives on the committee is like having the rapist sitting on the judge's bench.

Somehow, Howie Kurtz thinks the unpopularity of the war in Iraq is all the media's fault. Showing too much violence, and not reporting the good news. That's the WP media critic, folks.

I will volunteer to go to Iraq and report some good news. LOL.

Has the W.P. considered creating a completely separate section for its Science news, instead of burying it in under "Nation"? Surely "Science" should have an equal billing with the "Religion" headline (not to mention "Technology" and "Health", both of which are heavily dependent on underlying science information). What does it say about our country (and our future) if "Celebritology" gets more front-page coverage than science news on one of the country's most widely-read newspapers?

As Gomer Pyle would say, ser-prise, ser-prise, the A section is nowhere in the near-term rollout.

If I were the Post, I'd get a pallet of spam, flashlight with fresh batteries and a handcrank radio, and get ready to move into the shelter.

My lord Melissa and all the other anti-abortionist's,
Get a grip you missed the point of the article. It is about Plan B!!! not being available to Grown women who have the right to choose what kind of contraception they wish to use. Plan B is just that a Contraception. It is nothing more than a high
dosage of progestin, levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. It is currently available only by prescription Because of the Bush administration pushing the FDA to make it illegal with out a prescription. There is a window of 72 hours after sex. Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work. Therefore the decision to not make Plan B available to
women who are smart enough to decide for themselves, is the Religious Right trying to control sex. People stay out of my bedroom it really is none of your business.

Yup -- for fundamentalists of all stripes, it really is all about controlling female sexuality.

Not terribly sympathetic here to Dana L. If you don't want to get pregnant, use your birth control method of choice religiously. But there is no medical or legal reason why the Plan B option should not have been readily available to her.

Other than the fact that the right seems to have both a fear of and an obsession with teenage sexuality that is almost voyeuristic and certainly creepy. Have you heard about the chastity rings? (Shudder).

Do what digg and slashdot do: Let readers rate the comments and filter comments that rate below a reader defined ranking. Works great and as a side effect relives you the editor of having to filter comments that readers would themselves consider irrelevant.

To all of the right wing anit-abortion (read: sex is only for having babies) crowd:

Mind your own business.

What a woman decides to do with HER body is HER BUSINESS (and that of her physician) - NOT YOURS.

I'll listen to what each of you has to say if, and only if, you can prove to me that you have adopted enough children to put you into poverty (poverty like your savior practiced), and that you work tirelessly to show your kids love and pay attention to their problems, needs, and concerns.

Among those children there must be:

Children of other races;

Children with disease;

Ugly children;

Children who are not infants or toddlers;

Children born as the result of unwanted pregnancy;

Children of rape and incest.

You get the point.

In the absence of this commitment to the unwanted children of the world and their sacred lives, you are simply trash-talkers with too much wealth and time on your hands.

Until you can meet these criteria, you are just blowing smoke up society's bung-hole, trying to prove why you're better than everybody else.

Your path to salvation is your own. You reward will come after you die - not in this life. What anyone else does or believes regarding reproduction and spirituality isn't, and by all rights, should not be, any of your business.

I invite all of you to rush headlong to your great reward (I'm sure the afterlife you've been promised - the one put forth in the cultural idea/ideal of "heaven" - is exactly as you imagine it will be. So, why are you hanging around here?).

Here's how you do it: Go to Mecca with a Bible and try to convert the Muslims there. You will be summarily executed while doing god's work (Opus Dei), and will go directly to heaven and sit at the almighty's right hand. There is no downside to this, as you will finally get what you so richly deserve.

Please do it.

smafdy-

That was one righteous statement! Well done!

Fred Hiatt was at it again yesterday with a lie- and distortion-filled op-ed about Harry Reid.

No, Fred, Senator Reid did not "accept tickets worth between several hundred and several thousand dollar each". Reid got a pass from the State of Nevada, which the state officials give all the time, and which has zero market value.

Fred needs a refreshing course in Journalistis Ethics. He also needs to look up the meaning of "objectivity", which does not mean "balancing facts with fiction".

No wonder WaPo's circulation has embarked on a steep decline. Who wants to pay for lies and distortions?

And, Mr. Brady, you of the Ben Domenech's hiring debacle, get over yourself, and stop lecturing the bloggers on behavioral etiquette. All it shows is that you a are a pompous ass, and that you have no respect for the opinions of others.

Your kind, Mr. Brady, the fatuous, lazy, arrogant, "elite" "journalist", is on its way to extinction. Declining circulation, caused by poor and unethical practices, will soon render you and the rest of your clique, totally redundant.

Enjoy being a patsy to the radical right-wing and to the most incompetent and dangerous administration in the history of the United States while it lasts. It won't last much longer.

Thanks, wiccan.

S

Just a little fyi--on other sites where people sometimes post inappropriate things, other readers can 'flag' postings and have them removed.

Devil's Advocate

Great post as usual.

To "areader"

But every little post contributes something to the overall blogginess of this site. (I especially like Lauren's contribution to that overall effect today.)

Which is important given the fact that this site by no means measures up to the standards of actual blogging -- the standards in that category have been set by Jane and Christy at Firedoglake (see the Ann Coulter post over there) and by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory.

Blogginess is what we do here. Not blogging.

We start blogging the day Jim Brady admits that in fact he has no documentary evidence that Jack Abramoff "directed contributions" to Democrats. Or he could actually come up with said evidence but he's shown no inclination to do so as yet.

Or maybe the day Fred Hiatt admits that the "Good Leak" editorial was an embarrassment to the Post and it's readership.

I'm not holding my breath.

The above post is mine.

Mr. Brady,

Thanks for cleaning up the froth. When partisans go overboard they don't care what they trash in the process (what happened to the omsbudsman was simply uncalled for and a direct partisan attack).

Over the years WP has become my favorite national newspaper (it's a more formal newspaper which I prefer), and I like it because of the interaction with all the blogs (too many to list now!). Would be wonderful to be able to comment on editorials, as I find myself posting links to some in the past on Emily's blog instead. :/

Another suggestion: Allow the first 3 to 6 digits of the IP to show publically. That can curtail trolls, sockpuppetry and other wholesale riftraft that pollute online forums (I manage/admin forums and know full well what they can do to a site). The privacy is ensured, but it'll also let readers know if it's 10+ comments under different aliases from *one* person, too (since this site doesn't offer permanent nicknames). Those types usually aren't doing anyone any favors and are vicious in their attacks, that disrupt the whole forum for everyone. It'll also help members to police the content, since staff more than unlikely are online at 2am.

Even still, keep up the good work! :)

SandyK

I see the editors have dispatched one of their minions to plant a congratulatory message.

Let us indeed allow partial IP addresses to show publicly. This will force the editors and their patsies to run from computer to computer to post their tripe.

Jim Brady wrote:

"As most of you know, our charge into this interactive world has not been trouble free, and we've had to deal with blog commenters who are more interested in personal attacks and/or taunting than in making persuasive arguments and conducting civil conversations."

Just once, rather than blaming his readers, it would be nice for Mr. Brady to admit his (and other Washington Post employees') roles. If Mr. Brady would respond to the polite commenters (by, say, resonding to questions posted in the comment section of his announcenebt that he has hired a republican political operative as the new WashPo blogger) then maybe people wouldn't get mean or vulgar. As it is, the problem here isn't the personal attacks - it's Mr. Brady's continual insistence that he not not engage or respond to valid criticism.

Mr. Brady has the choice to be a professional and respond to criticism or he can take the low road and "whine" about personal attacks.

So far Mr. Brady proves time and time again he just likes to whine.

Sandy!! Your $20 is on the Night table.Now they have to PAY a Flunky to Praise the FINE Reporting of The Post.You're getting as desperate as Bush.The NYT, The Post are sinking with Bush.Hold on You're in for a Bumpy ride.Couldn't happen to A Nicer Bunch.Better still would be Harry Ried Suing Dead Fred the DoDo Head and the Post every Dollar you got for the Slander you've Printed maybe that would be a Wake Up Call.Don't worry when the Post finally draws it's Last breath you won't be Missed we'll still have Fox NEWS to Catapult the Propaganda.

SandyK

You really are playing catch-up around here. Or you are unfamiliar with the whole Lil Debbie saga.

But that's ok because your blogginess helps maintain the the whole tone we are going for here -- a mix of fawning praise, heavy sarcasm and shameless marketing ploys.

Actually as a forum maintainer/Admin/modder/designer I deal with these issues on a regular basis. Every last site online has rules that admins put up that are similiar to WPs, let alone how they handle troll infestations (or site take overs from competing sites). It doesn't matter if it's Daily KoS or FreeRepublic, if you don't follow the rules, perks and individuals are pulled to maintain order.

WP and Mr. Brady are doing what admins all over the internet do to maintain order of their property. They force no one to participate here, and if you think you can do a better job, you can setup your own blog/website and have a go at being an admin like them (and learn firsthand it's not an easy job, let alone one that satisfies any side).

To be quite honest, WP and Mr. Brady have bent over backwards, more so than any site and forum I've been online since even before 1998 (and I've been on most of the largest forums online), to ensure all sides had a voice in why changes were made. Other sites and admins have a "God" rule and handle these insurgent activities more rudely with zero input from the community. It's truly "my way or the highway".

Just be lucky you can even voice what you do, because the internet isn't governed by the laws you're used to on the street -- and fat chance getting them changed, as no admin who's sane would want two-bit trolls dictating policy on their personal property (especially when they're not footing the bill).

As for journalism integrity, that's the job of the profession to change, again, not partisans more interested in site take overs and crashing sites to get even (which happens too much when little script kiddies have too much time on their hands, and a chatroom to rally their buddies for some "fun").

Now go ahead and insult your havens' admins for maintaining a decorum on their sites too, I'm sure they'll appreciate your hypocritical grape shot approach and will take measures to put a plug in it too.

:)

SandyK
Admins Rule!

MLWAM,

I'm an independent voter who detests partisan rancor and hypocrisy. What was done to the omsbudman was dispicable behavior from folks who claim to be ethical, but don't show it themselves.

Independent and moderate voters (which are the majority) would consider their sources and digest what they need, they sure don't need partisans to dictate content for them, especially how nasty they've become with staging lynch mobs.

I read content from all sides, and form my own opinions. It's the ONLY way to form independent viewpoints, otherwise it's yet another hill of partisan dung.

Stay away from rolling in it, or eat dung from trough. The choice is yours, but you have no choice in dictating content. That's for individuals to do for themselves, not busybodies forcing their ideals.

SandyK

Sandy get over yourself.You're a paid Hack and it shows.as the saying goes'If your can't Dazzle Them with Brillance you Baffle Them with B/S.SPIN SPIN SPIN.

And you're not SUE (or whatever sock you're now)?

Yeah, talking about revealing your very own tactics with falsely accusing others, and continue to do so, despite evidence to the contrary.

Oops, that's right, evidence is meaningless unless it has a partisan bent to it. :rolleyes:

SandyK

To those who oppose differing views on abortion (those with whom no rational discourse is possible, and when you get mad from reading this, it means YOU)

Abortion was against the law for a very long time. Just because a hijacked movement pushed a bogus case through the courts and USED a young woman to make their case to make it legal does NOT make it right.

What smafdy said.

Sandy - When implementing controversial new policies at your own site - do you try to address the issues and questions that come up (Who was Ben Domenech hired to balance? Why does the ombudsman think democrats took money from abramahoff?) or do you just ignore your users and let their frustration fester? Isn't it better to engage peoples complaints than ignore them? If fact, doesn't ignoring complaints lead to foreseeable rudeness? Blame commenters all you like, but it's not like their weren't egged on by Mr. Brady's continual refusal to engage, explain, answer, or respond to his users.

"... Mr. Brady's continual refusal to engage, explain, answer, or respond to his users." Indeed.

Either Brady whines about the bloggers, or he dispatches SandyK to write "I Love WaPo and its Editors" notes.

"Just because a hijacked movement pushed a bogus case through the courts and USED a young woman to make their case to make it legal does NOT make it right."

I guess we know what your position on abortion is. Fine. Don't impose it on others.

It always amazes me that the "compassion" shown by the pro-lifers towards pregnant women and their fetuses ends with childbirth. Protecting life applies only to the unborn for that crowd. After birth, there is never a pro-lifer in sight to help if mother and child are in need.

Beth wrote:
===========================================
Sandy - When implementing controversial new policies at your own site - do you try to address the issues and questions that come up
===========================================

It depends. If it responses came from regulars (not flash-in-the-pan invaders) with input that adds value to the site, civil and can be implimented I'd consider it. The minute it becomes a power play, dictating content, vulgar, going nowhere the spigot is turned off. That's usually the response of any admin anywhere online.

Their site is their property and they have the final say of how it's run, from the rules, to site content. This is a long established rule online. It doesn't change because WP is WP.

Personally, I would've done even more to alleviate the situation if a warning to cool down wasn't followed, in a way that the instigators will never try that stunt again. :evilest grin:

===========================================
"Why does the ombudsman think democrats took money from abramahoff?"
===========================================

Right there is the problem. You assume with nothing but blind partisanship to know exactly what the ombudsman was doing. Unless you're schizophrenic, you can't proclaim to know what she was doing, thinking or can claim to know what evidence she has to proclaim what she did factually.

Furthermore, the question wasn't even a question, either, it's already answered with a conclusion. Thus, what occurred.

Yellow journalism is bad, but partisan launched site attacks are just as ugly -- and wrong.

SandyK

Devil's Advocate,

I'm flattered that you give so much credit that of the thousands that visit WP daily, that WP choose little ol' me to write a glowing review. :rolleyes:

SandyK

SandyK,

You really don't get it.

Howell made a mistake. She was called on it with credible evidence that showed she was wrong. She refused to acknowledge her mistake. Jimbo claims that she was savaged by posters -- but refuses to restore those posts that he found so offensive ... even though I was around then and saw nothing that shocked my delicate sensibilities. We are just supposed to take his word for how awful and offensive they were.

He also got all bent out of shape about the e-mails she got -- like that's not par for the course ... any public figure with a publicly available e-mail learns to develop a thick enough skin to read past the anger and the insults and see if there's an actual point or rebuttal being made. Debbie's the ombudsman -- she probably should have known it was not going to be all hearts and flowers, dontcha think?

Brady and Howell continue to act as if their posters are the problem. We are not. It is their inability to admit their mistakes.

You go right ahead and focus on the administrative issues. Go ahead and believe that those issues are at the heart of the problem.

Those of us who focus on the journalistic issues know that Brady's whining is just a smokescreen for the fact that, to date, he has never once been able to document his "evidence" that Abramoff directed campaign contributions to Democrats.

That's an integrity issue and I care about those a hell of a lot more than his "administrative" issues.

You sound like you are angling for a job with the Post. Believe me, you can do better.

Oh yeah -- and in response to your question above, we "think" that Howell thought Democrats took money from Abramoff because she uh actually said it.

Nothing blindly partisan about it -- unless we are supposed to believe that she doesn't actually think the words she puts in print.

Methinks you should go back and actually read some of the stuff you are posting on.

MLWAM,

You don't need to give me a description of the event, I was right there on the blog at the time. I also was following the live powwow, which turned more into a witch hunt than a discussion about how to handle such outbursts in the future.

Am I crying that my posts were removed? No. Is it worth hours of my time worrying about them missing? No.

You guys don't get the fact that there's a thing called civil discourse, the blogging event was anything but civil it was a nasty flame fest. Posts were pulled because the catcalls and flames were disgusting. You guys turned the event into a three-ring circus, when the matter was more serious. It was so ugly I made a rare email to Ms. Howell to keep up the good work, because her job is a thankless one when a side dislikes a viewpoint. I've seen what local witch hunts by agenda driven idiots can do when their pet ideas aren't followed, and the catcalls and death threats are NOT funny.

So spare me the latest whine and cheese session.

SandyK

Just look at this page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramoff-Reed_Indian_Gambling_Scandal

That's the first article at Wikipedia that I've seen so contested with a deletion request to add to it due to not being neutral in content.

It shows for the public the rancor involved in the issue, and how NON neutral partisans are about it.

That's the truth.

SandyK

Wow,

Where to start?

The fact that there is partisanship around this issue is irrelevant to the facts surrounding this issue. Facts can be documented regardless of partisanship.

And the facts show that Abramoff himself donated zero dollars to Democrats.

The facts also show that, although some Abramoff clients donated money to Democrats, they donated LESS to those Democrats after becoming Abramoff clients than they had before hiring Jack. Which, if it is evidence of anything, is better evidence that Jack directed his clients' money away from Democrats.

Those facts have been documented ... and not by Wikipedia. And those facts were shared with Brady on this blog and by e-mail.

Those are the facts that were provided to Howell as well. Neither has ever disputed those facts -- and yet they still refuse to retract Brady's statement that he had evidence that Jack directed money to Democrats. That's the issue. It is a matter of facts and not partisanship.

I suggest you find a more reputable source than Wikipedia if you want to debate facts rather than throw around empty accusations of partisanship.

Everyone always wants to play that partisanship card. It's a real trump card. Stops the whole game. Keeps people from facing the facts, even if they are staring them in the face.

You have an interesting memory.

You have apparenty forgotten the many many posts that were both civil and on point.

That Brady ignored.

Maybe you should go back and take a look.

MLWAM,

Actually your efforts to spin even Wikipedia's entry shows by how much partisanship is more important than even ***neutrality***.

That's 2 sites now that the issue left a stink, solely on, yes, partisanship.

BTW, your attempts at rewriting history is suffering. All the posts that were cleared later were intercepted in situ and eyeballed for vulgarity (the cleanup shows decent posts afterwards). What transpired before they started moderating posts, was not by any stretch of the word, civil.

Now go back and look at what a nice editing pen can do. :)

SandyK

my throat hurts. would it bother you to pull your opinions out of it?
thanks.

Perhaps SandyK should go look up the word ombudsman and take her obviously partisan bent out of her posts. Meanwhile, how many people died in Iraq this week? Well, at least, one, oh, happy day. Let's hope the troops are coming home now that we've reached yet another major turning point.

When will your newspaper write unbiased news?

The morning's Post headline is probably the worst slant in the war on terror-"After Zarqawi, No Clear Path in Weary Iraq." Could it have more defeatism into a single headline? And let's not forget the red flag subtitle-"Difficult Questions Surround Legacy of Insurgent Leader." Legacy? This man sawed off the heads of innocent, unarmed victims, on camera for the internet. Insurgent? That's someone who leads a rebellion from within a country. Zarqawi wasn't even Iraqi, he was an intruder whose only "achievement" in Iraq was mass murder of Iraqis. Inside the paper, "In the Mideast, Not Sure What to Think." The terrorists must truly love the Washington Post. Please stop displaying the U.S. (your home 2) as sympathic to such hatred and mass destrution.

So, when is the comments on articles feature going to be up and running. I've found several this morning I'd like to talk back to. Could the Duke parents have bought more favorable coverage?

What clear path to victory does the death of one boogey man forge, Stephanie? How long do you think it will be before this administration holds up another poster boy as the scapegoat for their failures in a war that should never have happened and the Bush faithful will all hiss in unison? I'm sure Fox News has some headlines that would be more to your liking. Personally, I prefer reality based journalism, not that you're going to find much of that here, either. The truth is, Iraq is too unstable for any one to be able to safely report what is really happening there. The pile of dead journalists that are accumulating, more than suffered trying to report WWII, is Exhibit #1.

The above is a clear example that we really need the ability to comment on online articles. Folks are doing the commenting where the blogs are, instead of at the source.

We really need something like TypeKey or some type of nickname registration too. Makes commenting easier, and allows tracking of posts (so essential for folks to use the many blogs here).

Sidenote: Sara B., the issue is opening up more commentary venues (which I hope is expanded with checks in place to not repeat the site invasion episodes again). It's not to hijack the discussion to rehash history.

SandyK

"When partisans go overboard they don't care what they trash in the process (what happened to the omsbudsman was simply uncalled for and a direct partisan attack)."

Whose attacking who here. SusanK is the worst type of troll - she attacks people first, ignores the facts, and hides behind name calling ("Partisans"). In fact I really doubt she's an admin - she can't even figure out that she doesn't need to sign her name after every post. Know any admins that can't figure that out?

John,

You're right, I don't know if SusanK is an admin or not.

:D

SandyK

"Democrats Closing Fundraising Gap With Republicans"- I've never seen a story spun so well to disguise the facts of the matter and twist the reality. The narrowed gap is for a brief period and ignores the incredible advantage Reps have had from small individual contributions as opposed to the Soros's et al.
By the way McCain/Feingold was pushed strongly by Dems who were under the delusion that big business was the heart of Rep funds. Now they know that it's the middle class that they get it from.
And McCain's internet $ is a joke in dollar amounts. If the media didn't love to talk about it it would be recognized as a flop.

A wiccan tells a blogger that her post about (the liberal sacrament of) abortion on demand is "righteous" in her eyes, and the blogger replies, "Thank you."
....Can life get any stranger?

I would like to see a definition of "partisan" that isn't just a substitute for "Democrats".

I don't believe it is possible that every single person who disputed Howell's write-up about the Abramoff scandal did so out of partisanship. It seems clear to me that at least some of them were doing so because Howell and Brady made statements that were simply not true, and no facts have been provided by The Washington Post to back them up.

Now, the real question is: Did Howell and Brady make untrue statements that falsely smeared Democrats for partisan reasons? If not, why are they not uncomfortable with having made these false statements which make them look partisan?

Avedon wrote:
===========================================
"Now, the real question is: Did Howell and Brady make untrue statements that falsely smeared Democrats for partisan reasons? If not, why are they not uncomfortable with having made these false statements which make them look partisan?"
===========================================

/me likes to unrival these knots for fun.

Let's rephase the question to make it more neutral...

*******************************************
"Now, the real question is: Did Howell and Brady make statements that smeared Democrats for partisan reasons? If not, are they uncomfortable or comfortable with having made these statements?"
*******************************************

Your efforts to cast a negative question for a foregone answer to your liking is what's partisan. What I cleared up above removes the conclusion, and asks neutral questions seeking non loaded answers.

SandyK

My condolences to the Washington Post
on the death of Zarqawi. Just knowing that the Bush adminstration did something good must be causing kiniption fits
amongst you which makes me very very happy.

A war USA with Iran begin in 2007-2008 years! But from USA not chance! Russia help Iran in manufactured atom bomb! Work out to the and!
Goodbye USA!

A war USA with Iran begin in 2007-2008 years! But from USA not chance! Russia help Iran in manufactured atom bomb! Work out to the and!
Goodbyee USA!
adats@rambler.ru

Sandy K,

You say to me

"Actually your efforts to spin even Wikipedia's entry shows by how much partisanship is more important than even ***neutrality***."

You actually have no clue about Wikipedia do you? I hope you know more about system administration than your knowledge of Wikipedia would indicate.

And it is SO interesting to observe how "non-partisan" and "only-interested-in-the-facts" you manage to ignore the actual facts of the relationship (or rather the lack thereof) between Abramoff and Democrats. You managed to ignore them the first time they were posted for Jim Brady and you managed to ignore them when I posted them for you.

Careful -- your agenda is showing.

Howie is at it again, saying

"Her [Coulter's] one valid point -- that once widows turn themselves into political activists, their personal tragedies should not shield them from rebuttal -- is totally overwhelmed by the nastiness of her assault."

Except that Coulter is, as usual, knocking down a straw man. Which is not the same thing as making a "valid point."

Howie, please point your readers to the place where any one of these 9/11 widows (or any Democrat or any liberal) ever suggested that people were not permitted to disagree with or rebut their position because they are 9/11 widows.

Buy a clue. You can't point us to any such statement.

Ann Coulter attacked them on the basis of their widowhood because she either can't or won't rebut the point that these women (and the 9/11 commission) are making. And real arguments are not what sell her books and get her on TV.

Perhaps you need a better understanding of the concept of validity. Or even a shred of analytical ability in order to be able to better deconstruct some of the crap that spews from Coulter's mouth.

The N.S.A. and it's warrantless wiretapping are truly between a rock and a hard place; so too are the citizens of North America.Our need for privacy under our respective charters is tantamount to the way we perceive democracy.Unfortunately when there is a world wide crisis of terrorism then the duty of the government is to protect it's eminent domain & all it's citizens and that may include " national security wiretapping". As a Canadian we just had 17 people arrested on alleged terrorist activities if the N.S.A. was helpful to my country in this Thanks and it proves the system is working, it just needs to be tweaked.

Terri,

As it happens, there's pretty much NO evidence to support the idea that those wiretaps helped with the Canadian arrests.

Unless you think the unsupported words of members of this administration would constitute evidence.

But remember, they said they knew where the WMDs were in Iraq.

It was probably just good old-fashioned police work.

The Post comes out against net neutrality. Surprise, surprise. The paper's inexorable slide to the dark side continues apace.

And the WPO now qualifies for:
"Big Lie of the Week: No. 4"

Read for yourself everyone

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=lie4

I stopped reading Dana Milbank's piece today when I got to the word "lefties." Talk about partisan bent. If we are going to be fair and balanced, let's have equal time. When was the last time he or any Post reporter wrote an article in which Bush addressed his faithful and referred to them as "bushbots."

Damn!

Is Richard Morin messin' with us? You bet he's using unconventional wisdom when he writes of comedy (Jon Boy) corrupting Democracy. Hey, Richard politics is screwing up Democracy.

Morin Should be Able to Take A Joke HIS MOTHER DID!!!!

And Terri the RCMP were MONITORING TERROR Websites not bugging Our Phones You got to Have VOTED for Harper. Winger for Sure

Hi, according to this discussion theme i think that you might be interested in http://www.yourgirls.ab3.eu/ where you can find hundreds of cool girls right from your town... Just check it.

Howard Kurtz's 6/26 assault on Murray Waas for not wearing his cancer on his sleeve is stunning. He says "Did Waas's near-death experience... affect his journalism? How could such a searing experience not change your outlook on work and life?" Yes Mr. Kurtz, a near death experience does tend to focus one on what is important in work and life. We are all indebted to Mr. Waas for his focus on the duty of a free press and his dedication to digging out the truth and reporting it. Clearly, Mr. Kurtz has never had an experience that would focus his attention on actually writing something of value to the country. I am disappointed, but not surprised, to find that he instead prefers to attack those who have.

Re: SWIFT security intercept of money transfers. In 1986 the law to help track drug money was put into effect. A CTR(Certified Transfer Report) is required for any money transaction over $10,000. Should not the same law be passed to cover international transfers if it does not cover it at this time. Maybe its the paperwork required to report??? Vrspy Buzz Baer Holualoa Hi.

Dear sara b.

Don't let yourself be offended by the title 'Lefty' (or even 'Liberal'), it/we have a long proud history we can trace that leads from the Weavers to Woodie Gutherie,to Bob Dylan to Gene MCCarthy to Sartre to Paul Wellstone. Its just that the Right and their minions have managed to smear it...
However, thanks to GWB, the Iraqi misadventure and the comming economic wreck, in ten years the appallation 'Right Wing' will carry the negative connotations that 'Lefty' currently does amoung the main stream.

The new comments feature seems to leave out apostrophes. Check it out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006071301845

I'm sure some of those people used apostrophes in their posts.

RE: Putin's "Sovereign Democracy"

I find several similarities to our current administration in Masha Lipman's article, Putin's "Sovereign Democracy".

"In the course of Putin's (Bush's) presidency, such fundamental elements of democracy as separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and press freedom have been gravely undermined. Over the past year and a half (since 2001) the Kremlin (White House) has conducted an ongoing electoral reform (paperless e-voting,gerrymandering etc, etc.) aimed at consolidating the dominance of the pro-Kremlin (pro-White House) party United Russia (Republican party)."

I suppose Bush did see into Putin's soul or vise-versa and liked what he saw.

Thanks a lot for the wonderful and very useful work .
http://microwave-toaster.myrelive.org http://car-center-entertainment-home-poster.myrelive.org