Everyone that works is working class (I despise people that work for a living)

[peptastic]

I don't watch pundits either.
Chris Hedges wrote a rather informative article about the state the tv media is in. The Day That TV News Died
MSNBC is owned by General Electric who profits from selling weapons. They just hired two Obama campaign aides. Gibbs, who said Anwar Awliki's 16 year old son who was assassinated by a drone "should have had a better father". Due process and the rule of law are a thing of the past. If your father exercises freedom of speech and criticizes free speech it's tantamount to terrorism now.
If you can't prove someone guilty in a court of law then they aren't guilty.
THAT is what Noam Chomsky said about OBL that we still have due process. Hitchens started his smear campaign and wrote a silly article on slate.com that he was supporting terrorism.
The nazis received a trial.

Foxnews is trash. Cnn isn't any better.

Of course I'm invested. Our leaders on the behest of corporations are destroying the earth.
We might just lose the internet freedom soon with cispa.
Corporations will get immunity to spy on us. They've already received retroactive immunity for doing so illegally with the phones.
How else can you stay ahead of propaganda if you don't stay informed?

Who else is being spied on right now? Not only terrorists [or really innocent Muslims].
Environmentalists and other activists are being targeted by the fbi.
Terrorism was an excuse to take our rights at home.

We're having an undeclared war with 33 African countries right now.
If all the people concerned about the economy can't connect the dots its because they buy the crap from the pundits on tv or silly writers on slate which was Hitchens home before he died.
Now they've got David weigel.

Everyone has a right to life not just Israel.
Israeli activists get tear gassed.in Israel if you are a woman and you associate with a Muslim man you are arrested.
I feel badly for them too. Their drowning underneath a corrupt government that IS committing genocide.


Hitchens, Cheney, Chabali, etc. conspired to trick the American people.
Bush believed in it but that's small comfort after the horror that happened after the Iraq war.

 

[realitybites]

The nazis received a trial.

Not because the allies felt they deserved one. But rather, to expose and document their war crimes to the world theater.

in Israel if you are a woman and you associate with a Muslim man you are arrested.

Please provide a link to your source of information.

 

[peptastic]

Trying people via nytimes rather than a court of law isn't the same.
We should always try to hold a trial for everyone. The problem with not giving the accused a trial is the charge itself becomes sufficient for who does deserve rights. Then rights become meaningless.
Whether it is Anwar Salinity or even more troublesome, his teenage son simply because the president says they are guilty and they don't have to tell anyone why then they can overcharge anyone.

Just following orders didn't fly with the Nazis so why hasn't anyone involved in the torture gone to jail?

Anyway, I mixed up the vigilantes in the strip with Israel law. My apologies.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-intermarriage-viewed-treason/8459
And http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113724468
its not technically illegal to associate just socially frowned upon.
like the nasty letters the rabbis wrote condemning women to marry Arab men.

The land ownership is where the cruel and inhumane treatment really gets going.
The settlements of the west bank and Gaza strip is what Noam Chomsky was talking about.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/1...it-to-gaza-the-worlds-largest-open-air-prison
That is hardly defending terrorism.

 

[Anonymous]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323466204578382753004333838.html

 

[realitybites]

Trying people via nytimes rather than a court of law isn't the same.
We should always try to hold a trial for everyone. The problem with not giving the accused a trial is the charge itself becomes sufficient for who does deserve rights. Then rights become meaningless.
Whether it is Anwar Salinity or even more troublesome, his teenage son simply because the president says they are guilty and they don't have to tell anyone why then they can overcharge anyone.

Just following orders didn't fly with the Nazis so why hasn't anyone involved in the torture gone to jail?

Anyway, I mixed up the vigilantes in the strip with Israel law. My apologies.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-intermarriage-viewed-treason/8459
And http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113724468
its not technically illegal to associate just socially frowned upon.
like the nasty letters the rabbis wrote condemning women to marry Arab men.



The land ownership is where the cruel and inhumane treatment really gets going.
The settlements of the west bank and Gaza strip is what Noam Chomsky was talking about.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/1...it-to-gaza-the-worlds-largest-open-air-prison
That is hardly defending terrorism.

No problem. I know that the orthodox Jews in Israel can be as bad as the fundamentalist Muslims. But those fanatics don't represent the average Israeli who is actually opposed to the building of settlements. Most Israelis dislike the settlers for many reasons. The settlement issue being only one of them.

I do wonder though what would happen to a Palestinian woman who associates with a Jewish man? Could she be stoned to death under Sharia law? At the very least she could be killed by her family members for dishonoring them. It may technically be illegal, but who is going to prosecute them? Keep in mind that while Palestinians may be suffering a kind of apartheid in Israel, ALL Muslim women suffer a gender apartheid in every Islamic society. What does your hero Chomsky have to say about that? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Humanist for men only?

 

[Anonymous]

I have a soft spot for Jews. But I oppose the building of settlements and support a two-state solution.

Then why have you been mean towards nothappynotsad?

 

[peptastic]

No problem. I know that the orthodox Jews in Israel can be as bad as the fundamentalist Muslims. But those fanatics don't represent the average Israeli who is actually opposed to the building of settlements. Most Israelis dislike the settlers for many reasons. The settlement issue being only one of them.

I do wonder though what would happen to a Palestinian woman who associates with a Jewish man? Could she be stoned to death under Sharia law? At the very least she could be killed by her family members for dishonoring them. It may technically be illegal, but who is going to prosecute them? Keep in mind that while Palestinians may be suffering a kind of apartheid in Israel, ALL Muslim women suffer a gender apartheid in every Islamic society. What does your hero Chomsky have to say about that? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Humanist for men only?

I'm not an advocat of sharia law by any means.
From what I've read of Chomsky and of Ron Paul [who diverge in many areas] the problem is our government interferes when the people did have their own revolutions to get rid of things like Sharia law.
Look at the civil liberties we've lost at home due to the war. It's pretty brutal in Iran. It's cruel and he never denied it.

such as this interview-
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1047/professor-noam-chomsky-in-interview
He doesn't come across as someone for sharia law at all.

The idea of not starting aggressive wars but trying diplomacy instead of aggressive wars is rational.
The problem with policing other countries based on a complex religion is the racism it's instilled as the byproduct in the united states.
The laws and the harassment at muslim americans.
Most of the people under sharia law are its victims and the sanctions imposed on iraq in the 90s and on Iran now are affecting those people not the government.

For example the US helped put in place leaders very much for Sharia law in Egypt.
Ron Paul has focused a lot on the cia death squads in his writing who are involved in the power plays and selling arms. I'm sure your aware the cia trained Osama Bin Laden.
The usa should have stayed out completely.
The arab spring happened in SPITE of america.

I hope a two party state can be solved.
I'm a fan of Israeli writer David Grossman [one of his books had the stuff about arab men and israeli women from the 80s I can't remember which one.] the bulk of the people sound really great but the decline from the dear brother period of the 80s to the terrorism allowed now is drastic.
I think america and israel kind of lost their way so to speak.

 

[realitybites]

I'm not an advocat of sharia law by any means.
From what I've read of Chomsky and of Ron Paul [who diverge in many areas] the problem is our government interferes when the people did have their own revolutions to get rid of things like Sharia law.
Look at the civil liberties we've lost at home due to the war. It's pretty brutal in Iran. It's cruel and he never denied it.

such as this interview-
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1047/professor-noam-chomsky-in-interview
He doesn't come across as someone for sharia law at all.

The idea of not starting aggressive wars but trying diplomacy instead of aggressive wars is rational.
The problem with policing other countries based on a complex religion is the racism it's instilled as the byproduct in the united states.
The laws and the harassment at muslim americans.
Most of the people under sharia law are its victims and the sanctions imposed on iraq in the 90s and on Iran now are affecting those people not the government.

The sanctions are not because of Sharia law. They are due to the threat of Iran developing nuclear arms.

But, even without Sharia law, Muslim societies segregate the sexes in all areas of life, resulting in a distinct and undeniable disadvantage for women. This amounts to gender apartheid. Again, I ask, what does Chomsky or Paul say about this? It seems to be the elephant in the room that they are ignoring, for some reason.

For example the US helped put in place leaders very much for Sharia law in Egypt.
Ron Paul has focused a lot on the cia death squads in his writing who are involved in the power plays and selling arms. I'm sure your aware the cia trained Osama Bin Laden.
The usa should have stayed out completely.
The arab spring happened in SPITE of america.

I hope a two party state can be solved.
I'm a fan of Israeli writer David Grossman [one of his books had the stuff about arab men and israeli women from the 80s I can't remember which one.] the bulk of the people sound really great but the decline from the dear brother period of the 80s to the terrorism allowed now is drastic.
I think america and israel kind of lost their way so to speak.

I'll have to look into Grossman's writings.

 

[Guernie]

Keep up the good comments realitybites !
I have been following this thread and peptastic has pushed it far from the orginial anonymous . I truely wanted to hear more of anonymous veiws on living but never working . Like how does one get food ... grow your own ?
Hi peptastic. For one who doesn't watch the pundits, where do you getting your middle east information from ? Is it like a Fox or CNN but more locally geared to that area ? Are you from there and have insight ? Just curious . Thanks
Auto-Saved
.

 

[Deleted member 3241]

I wanted to give all a background on who I am and where I come from regarding my views on working. I was born into a wealthy family who made their money from investments and therefor made more money from making money grow by others working for them. My dad is a member of various top notch organisations and every year takes part in the Bilderberg gatherings to create even more contacts and find new ways of making more money.

Me and my family are obsessed with money and so much so we have made things out of money like clothes and so on just for fun and yes we have been pictured taking baths in bath tubs filled with money. Our political views are very extreme which comes from our father who have met other extremists around the world who are openly hateful towards poor people and those with the wrong heritage.

As a kid I grew up as someone who was always in a fight but avoided punishment through my family lawyers cause money means you escape the long arms of the justice. Being somewhat of an eye servant I have learned to get my way and get away with most things and a favourite sport is to stick 100 dollar bills into servants mouths at restaurants and of course they will feel bad but get on with it.

I hate almost all people I deal with as I realise other people are hopeless and useless and not worth the time of day. I get everything I point at and got into Morrissey because he is like me and hates people more than he loves them and is also sharing my views on so many things. It is obvious to be how he uses his ways to fool people into living him and he made a career out of this. He even fooled the mexican community to make even more money but his hate for them is too obvious.

I am now involved with right wing extremists around the world to try and form political parties in various countries and I was one of the main funders of the right wing party Jobbik in Hungary where I spent some time studying that movement and how it grew from nothing to a major political force in no time. I have had links to the KKK as well but trying to reform them into a serious political force seemed hopeless as they are more about preserving old conservative views on life that I deeply respect and admire.

The rise of the EDL in the UK has come hand in hand with the right wing success in Hungary and is a very exciting progress that I monitor from the front row so to speak. I am sure I will devote my life to these political movement and that I also one day will die from my involvement in them cause that is of course the price you must be prepared to pay. This is why I sacrificed having a family of my own but I also hate kids and mothers of kids asI did hate my own mother who died many years ago and whom I never bothered about as she was bullied out of my family for good reasons.

As time goes on working will need less and less workers due to technology and the masses of people that are useless without a job will have to be dealt with one way or the other. People can choose to change and accept life without a job and be paid a low sum for the most needed things so they avoid stealing my things and push me to shoot them cause that will be legal in a future with less people being needed. The rich must defend themselves and preserve the culture and values this world seems to have forgotten lately. The uprising around the world has started against the marxists that demand everything that everyone else has without any effort and we the people from the right background and with privileges must lead the necessary development of the world.

i worship you

 

[peptastic]

Keep up the good comments realitybites !
I have been following this thread and peptastic has pushed it far from the orginial anonymous . I truely wanted to hear more of anonymous veiws on living but never working . Like how does one get food ... grow your own ?
Hi peptastic. For one who doesn't watch the pundits, where do you getting your middle east information from ? Is it like a Fox or CNN but more locally geared to that area ? Are you from there and have insight ? Just curious . Thanks
Auto-Saved
.

I'm an American.
I didn't intend to veer off from the original thread but after realitybite's comment about Noam Chomsky it ended up getting off topic.
His reputation gets smeared enough.
As an American I don't feel we have the right to invade other countries and break the law.
I don't feel it has to happen to me specifically to give a damn.
What is happening in our name over 9/11 has gone too far.
We're at war with so many countries in Africa who had not a thing to do with 9/11.
That was with extremists in Saudia Arabia. not Yemen.
We're creating enemies by our actions now.
I care very much so for the things happening at home as a result as well.

I get my news from newspapers. I read the guardian, huffpo, salon, antiwar.com, rolling stone [for Matt Taibi's stuff], blogs like boingboing, thepeoplesrecord, russia today, english aljazeera. All sorts of places. I even read slate, gawker, etc. I do not watch fox or msnbc ever.
I also follow blogs, twitter, facebook from journos like Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, etc.

So realitybites, did you read the following three articles about Islampaphobia and new atheism?
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

I found them rather interesting.

To answer your question about sharia law again. My opinion is this:
America has no moral or legal standing to bomb, drone, attack, starve, invade, etc. another country aggressively.
Especially when we installed those countries governments doing said things in the freaking first place.
People may not like our gun control policies overseas but do they have a right to bomb us?
We have rather restrictive rights towards women in many parts of the us.
Again. Do they have the right to put sanctions on medicine, food, etc as a result?
How about trying diplomacy first?
No, instead we have the cia training murder squads across the world to protect corporations interests.
Ever hear of school of Americas?
This war has not a thing to do with terrorism.

This does not make Chomsky a terrorist supporter.
do you have anything besides Dawkins and Hitchens or hyperbolic nonsense to back up your claim he condones terrorism or even sharia law?
I found evidence he doesn't approve of sharia law and provided a link for you.

You can be against terrorism and extremists and not murder the people the most harmed by sharia law.

Israel has claimed Iran is developing nuclear weapons for 16 years now.
If they were we'd be treating them differently. look at North Korea for whom all intents and purposes is actually threatening us.
They are treated differently because they actually have the weapons.

 

[realitybites]

I'm an American.
I didn't intend to veer off from the original thread but after realitybite's comment about Noam Chomsky it ended up getting off topic.
His reputation gets smeared enough.
As an American I don't feel we have the right to invade other countries and break the law.
I don't feel it has to happen to me specifically to give a damn.
What is happening in our name over 9/11 has gone too far.
We're at war with so many countries in Africa who had not a thing to do with 9/11.
That was with extremists in Saudia Arabia. not Yemen.
We're creating enemies by our actions now.
I care very much so for the things happening at home as a result as well.

I get my news from newspapers. I read the guardian, huffpo, salon, antiwar.com, rolling stone [for Matt Taibi's stuff], blogs like boingboing, thepeoplesrecord, russia today, english aljazeera. All sorts of places. I even read slate, gawker, etc. I do not watch fox or msnbc ever.
I also follow blogs, twitter, facebook from journos like Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, etc.

So realitybites, did you read the following three articles about Islampaphobia and new atheism?
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134210413618256.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus

I found them rather interesting.

To answer your question about sharia law again. My opinion is this:
America has no moral or legal standing to bomb, drone, attack, starve, invade, etc. another country aggressively.
Especially when we installed those countries governments doing said things in the freaking first place.
People may not like our gun control policies overseas but do they have a right to bomb us?
We have rather restrictive rights towards women in many parts of the us.
Again. Do they have the right to put sanctions on medicine, food, etc as a result?
How about trying diplomacy first?
No, instead we have the cia training murder squads across the world to protect corporations interests.
Ever hear of school of Americas?
This war has not a thing to do with terrorism.

This does not make Chomsky a terrorist supporter.
do you have anything besides Dawkins and Hitchens or hyperbolic nonsense to back up your claim he condones terrorism or even sharia law?
I found evidence he doesn't approve of sharia law and provided a link for you.

You can be against terrorism and extremists and not murder the people the most harmed by sharia law.

Israel has claimed Iran is developing nuclear weapons for 16 years now.
If they were we'd be treating them differently. look at North Korea for whom all intents and purposes is actually threatening us.
They are treated differently because they actually have the weapons.

Read articles two days ago. Also, I am all too aware of Greenwald's twitter endorsements of Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists. Convinced even more now that Greenwald is living in his own ideological bubble. And as for the story written by the paranoid propagandist, let's just say it is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

Here is Sam Harris' response to this shoddy journalism.

When I said you are more invested in these issues, I meant it. My interests lie elsewhere... And you know how it is with time constraints.

Btw, I am what political scientists refer to as an interventionist. But before you get too excited... let me clarify that I am not a Neocon. And of course I get info from other sources other than Hitch and Dawkins. But guess what? My opinion is wholly my own. I take ownership of it. Can you honestly say you do the same?

 

[peptastic]

Read articles two days ago. Also, I am all too aware of Greenwald's twitter endorsements of Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists. Convinced even more now that Greenwald is living in his own ideological bubble. And as for the story written by the paranoid propagandist, let's just say it is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

Here is Sam Harris' response to this shoddy journalism.

When I said you are more invested in these issues, I meant it. My interests lie elsewhere... And you know how it is with time constraints.

Btw, I am what political scientists refer to as an interventionist. But before you get too excited... let me clarify that I am not a Neocon. And of course I get info from other sources other than Hitch and Dawkins. But guess what? My opinion is wholly my own. I take ownership of it. Can you honestly say you do the same?

Even Hitchens found fault with Harris statement about the fascists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_urbanities-steyn.html
When I read Sam Harris's irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: 'Not while I'm alive, they won't.'"

I wouldn't call it shoddy journalism. Greenwald provides many quotes and their sources.
Harris atheism is being used for his political ends which is just as dangerous as using religion for politics.

Fair enough if your interests lie elsewhere but to imply I can't think for myself when I do research and read from many sources is not fair in the least.
I replied after you wrote that because I got the impression you hadn't taken the time to research other than mainstream news, Hitchens and co. from your previous posts stating you hadn't invested time. You said your problem with Chomsky was he advocated for terrorism and I responded.

I'd given you the benefit of the doubt that it was from Hitchens since you said none of the arguments outlined in Greenwald's article were why you didn't like him. Then you said he was for terrorism which he isn't.

Many people in this country honestly think msnbc for example is better than fox news. Lots of people know what foxnews is. Or in the UK the daily mail.
It's quite easy for people to trust they are being told the truth. It's just after the Iraq war how was the trust not completely shattered.
For me it was.

You can hardly say Ron Paul is of the same ilk as Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky whom I also read. I read loads of different places because like others I can hardly traipse off to the middleast as Jeremy Schahill does.
I have other interests too. I've been quite honest about my taste in trash tv on these boards. I try to stay informed and call my elected reps not that it's been doing any good.
My opinions are absolutely my own.

Your better than this:
but before you get too excited

There's no need to be rude.
It's not like I stopped doing my Malkovich website years ago when he said he'd shoot George Galloway and Robert Fisk. I still watch his movies.
I don't agree with the neocon view but there's no need to get condescending.

Now if you were inspired to waterboard after viewing Zero Dark Thirty I might get judgmental but the whole interventionist thing... I just think it's going to end in catastrophe.
I've already stated my opinion on it though.

This whole business of demonising entire populations of people will eventually lead to something like we've seen countless times in history.
It's already started with, yes as Greenwald writes, a separate legal system in this country for Muslims.

You can't replace one religion above others and claim atheism though.
A soft spot based on religion?

The neocon view by Pam Gellar, Bush, Cheney and co are based on religion and the IDF is based on religion.
Where is the atheism?

 

[realitybites]

Even Hitchens found fault with Harris statement about the fascists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_urbanities-steyn.html
When I read Sam Harris's irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: 'Not while I'm alive, they won't.'"

Meaning, they won't be the only ones opposing Islamism. He will be as well. As will I, and many other self-described liberals.

I wouldn't call it shoddy journalism. Greenwald provides many quotes and their sources.

Greenwald re-tweeted an article that was intellectually dishonest and full of inaccuracies. Is that not shoddy journalism?

Harris atheism is being used for his political ends which is just as dangerous as using religion for politics.

Harris was pulled into the political sphere because of his atheism after the terrorist attacks on US soil. He regarded the motivation behind the attacks to be religiously motivated. As an atheist he found this to be absurd and unacceptable. Harris is not a pundit nor a political analyst. He is a philosopher, neuroscientist, and author. He was not using atheism as some kind of political angle.

Fair enough if your interests lie elsewhere but to imply I can't think for myself when I do research and read from many sources is not fair in the least.
I replied after you wrote that because I got the impression you hadn't taken the time to research other than mainstream news, Hitchens and co. from your previous posts stating you hadn't invested time. You said your problem with Chomsky was he advocated for terrorism and I responded.

I'd given you the benefit of the doubt that it was from Hitchens since you said none of the arguments outlined in Greenwald's article were why you didn't like him. Then you said he was for terrorism which he isn't.

Many people in this country honestly think msnbc for example is better than fox news. Lots of people know what foxnews is. Or in the UK the daily mail.
It's quite easy for people to trust they are being told the truth. It's just after the Iraq war how was the trust not completely shattered.
For me it was.

You can hardly say Ron Paul is of the same ilk as Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky whom I also read. I read loads of different places because like others I can hardly traipse off to the middleast as Jeremy Schahill does.
I have other interests too. I've been quite honest about my taste in trash tv on these boards. I try to stay informed and call my elected reps not that it's been doing any good.
My opinions are absolutely my own.

OK.

Your better than this:
but before you get too excited

You're right. My apologies.

There's no need to be rude.
It's not like I stopped doing my Malkovich website years ago when he said he'd shoot George Galloway and Robert Fisk. I still watch his movies.
I don't agree with the neocon view but there's no need to get condescending.

Fair enough.

 

[Skylarker]

Now make out with each other.

 

[realitybites]

Now make out with each other.

Sure. Wanna watch?

 

[Guernie]

I was going to jump back into the talk but Skylarker and you have got me ........... thinking ....... foolish ....... lost my train of thought ........ sorry !

 

[realitybites]

I was going to jump back into the talk but Skylarker and you have got me ........... thinking ....... foolish ....... lost my train of thought ........ sorry !

Oh yeah? Tell me more.

 

[peptastic]

Meaning, they won't be the only ones opposing Islamism. He will be as well. As will I, and many other self-described liberals.




Greenwald re-tweeted an article that was intellectually dishonest and full of inaccuracies. Is that not shoddy journalism?




Harris was pulled into the political sphere because of his atheism after the terrorist attacks on US soil. He regarded the motivation behind the attacks to be religiously motivated. As an atheist he found this to be absurd and unacceptable. Harris is not a pundit nor a political analyst. He is a philosopher, neuroscientist, and author. He was not using atheism as some kind of political angle.






OK.




You're right. My apologies.



Fair enough.

Apology accepted.
Stll friends?

I didn't find what GG did to be shoddy journalism.
He didn't include Dawkins in his own article as the other two did based on one quote.
He got dragged into it just for tweeting but he backed up why he thought the quote among other ones was questionable.

Glenn can get hyperbolic at times but his pieces are for the most part editorials. He's done a lot of his own investigative journalism for which he deserves recognition. His work on the Bradley Manning case alone earned my high esteem.
Shoddy journalism in my opinion equals nytimes sitting on stories such as WMD being a hoax.
Or journos willfully hiding Obama's faults to win him an election.
He is a lawyer turned columnist but after his work on the freedomofthepress he's absolutely a quality journalist now.

 

[realitybites]

Apology accepted.
Stll friends?

Of course.

I didn't find what GG did to be shoddy journalism.
He didn't include Dawkins in his own article as the other two did based on one quote.
He got dragged into it just for tweeting but he backed up why he thought the quote among other ones was questionable.

Glenn can get hyperbolic at times but his pieces are for the most part editorials. He's done a lot of his own investigative journalism for which he deserves recognition. His work on the Bradley Manning case alone earned my high esteem.
Shoddy journalism in my opinion equals nytimes sitting on stories such as WMD being a hoax.
Or journos willfully hiding Obama's faults to win him an election.
He is a lawyer turned columnist but after his work on the freedomofthepress he's absolutely a quality journalist now.

I actually used to read Salon. But it seemed to take on a negative, angry tone a few years back. The editor, Joan Walsh, while competent and talented, couldn't hide her dislike for all things Hitchens.

Sam Harris just wrote a piece for his blog, On “Islamophobia” and Other Libels. It is kind of long but worth reading if you are interested in understanding what all the hoopla is about.