Well, by definition it's the highest, Matt: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/182...9:43&out=49:56

"Progressive" Matt Yglesias: I support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns. Libertarian conservative Matt Welch: I also support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns. How depressing! Is there any room for foreign policy idealism left? Or has neoconservative buffoonery fully discredited American concern for the rights of people outside our borders? Matt Y. - it's a total slander to say that Eli Lake "doesn't give a shit" about democracy in China. Eli has a long history of supporting dissident movements in unfree countries across the globe. You owe him an apology.

Quoting nikkibong: "Progressive" Matt Yglesias: I support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

Libertarian conservative Matt Welch: I also support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

How depressing! Is there any room for foreign policy idealism left? Or has neoconservative buffoonery fully discredited American concern for the rights of people outside our borders?

Matt Y. - it's a total slander to say that Eli Lake "doesn't give a shit" about democracy in China. Eli has a long history of supporting dissident movements in unfree countries across the globe. You owe him an apology.

I haven't watched it yet, and I'm not advocating for or against any point of view, here. But it's important to keep in mind the idea that it's at least possible that the best way to help the victims of human rights abuses isn't necessarily to apply direct pressure at all times.

Quoting AemJeff: I haven't watched it yet, and I'm not advocating for or against any point of view, here. But it's important to keep in mind the idea that it's at least possible that the best way to help the victims of human rights abuses isn't necessarily to apply direct pressure at all times.

I heard a great interview a few years back on NPR with a Chinese guy (who may also have been an NPR reporter. I forget.). He was talking about piracy of DVDs and other intellectual property that had recently starting getting a lot of play in the news, thanks to RIAA, MPAA, and similar American interest groups. He said that the single most effective weapon the US had in its arsenal for getting around the Chinese government's restrictions on information flow and spreading its pro-democracy, etc., message was bootleg Hollywood movies. He advised that the US government reach a compensation agreement with those howling about losses due to insufficient copyright protections, to be paid for with the money they were wasting in other propaganda efforts. An anecdote, to be sure, but I think it illustrates Jeff's point. You can't always use your rooks and

Look-- there are some reasons to oppose the Chas Freeman nomination that have nothing to do with Israel. But that's not the operative question. The operative question is what, materially, prevented Chas Freeman from getting the post. And the answer is that Chas Freeman was too vocal a critic of Israel. Any informed adult knows that to be true, any honest person would admit that it's true, and denying it is just the usual dance we have to do on this issue.

Here are two stories about China I wrote last year. The first is about the Chinese oil company Mr. Freeman advised for $10,000 a year until last month. And the second one is about Chinese dissidents urging President Bush to boycott the games in Beijing. I've written plenty of China human rights stories over the years and I can't find all of them now. I've been to Beijing twice. My former managing editor, Ira Stoll, cares as deeply as anyone I know about the freedom deficit inside the people's republic. For a while, the New York Sun style rule was to affix the word "communist" before China. AEI has an entire program devoted to studying democracy in China. On and on. http://www.nysun.com/foreign/us-emba...as-deal/45816/ http://www.nysun.com/national/bush-m...tivists/82892/ For the record, I don't seek any apology from Matt. But thanks for the sentiment, Nikkibong. Matt, as I remember, didn't want to die on this hill anyway.

Quoting Freddie: Look-- there are some reasons to oppose the Chas Freeman nomination that have nothing to do with Israel. But that's not the operative question.

Really? I would think that's precisely the question.

I haven't watched this yet but on Eli Lake/NeoCons on China, I noticed a definite escalation and prioritization of this issue right around the time it became evident China would be the main hurdle in working out severe punishments for Iran. I recall a slew of articles at one point on the China/Russia problem as it relates to Iran but the focus was definitely on China. I've long suspected that China is about Iran, and Iran is of course about Israel. The neoconservative movement has been around a long time and so has the history of human rights abuse by China. If anyone can point out examples of the former's interest in the latter before the whole Iran issue erupted I'd be interested in seeing it. I also suspect that a blind eye would be turned to the human rights abuses if China became very cooperative tomorrow on Iran. I would not blame them for this, but the hypocrisy of couching their concern under morality/humanity is just wrong.

Quoting Freddie: Look-- there are some reasons to oppose the Chas Freeman nomination that have nothing to do with Israel. But that's not the operative question. The operative question is what, materially, prevented Chas Freeman from getting the post. And the answer is that Chas Freeman was too vocal a critic of Israel. Any informed adult knows that to be true, any honest person would admit that it's true, and denying it is just the usual dance we have to do on this issue.

It's irrelevant what "materially" prevented it; who did it and to what end is the point. This was about demonstrating power -- sure, his views weren't liked, but they were manifestly not unheard of for a government official. And the position was not involved in Middle East policy anyway. What he was was an easy mark. There were certainly marginal strikes against him: nothing that would stand out compared to all other public servants of the last twenty years, but enough different targets that critics could spread their attacks out and move from mater to matter as suited their purpose. I'll reiterate: to those who spiked him, the important concern was not

Eli was not really a leader in this, so it is really irrelevant what he has written about China. Matt is scapegoating him because his is a Republican; this was actually an intra-Democratic squabble with Democratic neocons ('liberal hawks,' whatever) leading the way. This incident is therefore threatening to Matt's project (Think Progress is all about stitching Dem groups together to maintain power [which effort I am 3000% behind, let me say]), so he is papering it over by offloading it onto Eli.

Matt Yglesias doesn't make his arguments in good faith. He's insincere, and no one should pay attention to him.

Since I don't know you very well it is difficult to tell if you're being ironic or not. From one perspective your statement could be seen as highly ironic - Yglesias' major push on the Freeman critics being that they are operating in bad faith. Assuming for the moment you weren't being ironic I wonder if you'd like to elaborate on why it is that you think good faith and sincerity matters in public discourse. You can read some views I posted on the subject here: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2712 For the record I generally agree that Yglesias, like most political commentators trying to make a living these days, often makes transparently bad faith arguments and that I generally ignore those and attempt to understand what he's really after and what point he's really trying to make. Sometimes he does try to cynically spin things. I've seen him walk a few things back when called on it though.

Just for the record Welch points out that Obama didn't wait 5 days before signing the omnibus bill per his campaign promise. The White House does appear to have made an effort: They posted a version on Friday, Obama signed it on Wednesday. Maybe it isn't true that there was a deadline involved that forced them to post the still-moving legislation rather than the final legislation but ... I'm glad that they at least seem to be trying.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: The neoconservative movement has been around a long time and so has the history of human rights abuse by China. If anyone can point out examples of the former's interest in the latter before the whole Iran issue erupted I'd be interested in seeing it.

From a 1997 article in Reason magazine: "In an attempt to deny MFN extension to China this summer, a coalition of protectionists, human rights advocates, religious conservatives, and administration bashers have united to elevate MFN renewal to the top of the summer's political agenda. Indeed, The Weekly Standard used 18 pages of a recent issue to spell out why it considers China the new 'Evil Empire.'"

Okay, already! Enough Freeman!!
I can't imagine a topic more boring.
No more Freeman!! Eeek!!
("I'm not that interested in Chas Freeman." --M. Yglesias.)

From one perspective your statement could be seen as highly ironic - Yglesias' major push on the Freeman critics being that they are operating in bad faith.

Assuming for the moment you weren't being ironic I wonder if you'd like to elaborate on why it is that you think good faith and sincerity matters in public discourse. You can read some views I posted on the subject here... It's just that I got my hands on Yglesias's very own "Who Gives a S*** Sincerity-Reader (Model #3871)" and had it running during the diavlog. Turns out he's a fraud.

Quoting nikkibong: "Progressive" Matt Yglesias: I support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

Libertarian conservative Matt Welch: I also support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

How depressing! Is there any room for foreign policy idealism left? Or has neoconservative buffoonery fully discredited American concern for the rights of people outside our borders?

Matt Y. - it's a total slander to say that Eli Lake "doesn't give a shit" about democracy in China. Eli has a long history of supporting dissident movements in unfree countries across the globe. You owe him an apology.

This just confirms exactly what I said about Matt Y. yesterday in another post. He can't just disagree with someone, he has to say that they are opportunists who never even believe what they say. This is Matt's modus operandi . Considering Matt takes care to shape his arguments well, its pretty pathetic that he constantly has to resort to such ad hominem attacks.

A must read analysis of the Chas Freeman story, that gives the full picture

Quoting ogieogie: Okay, already! Enough Freeman!!
I can't imagine a topic more boring.
No more Freeman!! Eeek!!
("I'm not that interested in Chas Freeman." --M. Yglesias.)

For real! I think the only reason this story gets so much play is that it allows media folks to talk about themselves--and in a psychoanalytic way: what's the subtext of the discourse on Freeman? Oh no! Now I'm doing it!

I've been surprised by the remove-the-secret-ballot proposal. I feels dangerous to me. Here is the best justification that Matt Y can offer. It doesn't strike me as a bad thing that employers should be able to comment on a unionization plan prior to a vote. To argue that intimidation can take place through the shield of a secret ballot is nonsensical. If the balloting is not so secret, then laws should be enacted to strengthen the secrecy. Intimidation can come from either side, and open balloting makes intimidation easier.

Good link Back, but just to play Devil's Advocate, Reason magazine is not exactly "neoconservative." I'd like to see Obama appoint someone who is even MORE critical on Israel than Freeman, without the China/Saudi issues, just to see how the Marty Peretz's of the world react. Also I find it highly humorous that many of the people who backed W so strongly, suddenly are worried about the US acting too pro-Saudi.

so what is a "moral" approach, in your opinion? uselessly saying "tsk tsk" every time china does something you don't like doesn't seem to do much but make the people "tsk tsk"ing feel better about themselves. Military options are off the table, right? so - what do something economically damaging to both countries to prove a point (never mind the misery that comes from economic hardship..)?

Psst, Yglesias! Call them "vouchers."

Thanks for the article Blackadder, though it would be helpful to have the actual Standard article. I'll admit to being wrong as technically, 1997 is definitley before the UN punishment talk on nuclear Iran, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that much of that article was about China's supply of arms and nuclear technology to rogue states, especially Iran, since a quick Google search yielded that this issue was brewing for a while even before the State Dept. gave a formal congressional report to this effect in early 1997. I of course am not negating the importance of reigning in illegal arms proliferation, but since we are speaking to the motivation (in this case, we really are) of the NeoCon fixation on China I think getting clarity on just which evil aspect of that country is so unacceptable to the NeoCons needs to be stated, and I don't think it's Tianneman Square or Tibet. I would be convinced and eating my words if you showed a pattern of concerned articles by that group on Chinese human rights over the years, but I do not think

Re Matt Y's MO, it is broadly the MO of those who write daily or weekly for money. The 'job' of the media (and writers) is to deliver an audience to the advertisers, who pay all the bills. To develop and maintain an audience, information is not enough -- there has to be drama: audiences return for drama. The formula is straightforward: information + blame = drama. Take the driest information, add blame, and it suddenly becomes a bit more intriguing, more polarizing, less resistible. This is 'off-putting' for audiences looking primarily for information, but those audiences are, unfortunately, not as big as those looking for drama.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... just to see how the Marty Peretz's of the world react.

You are pluralizing a noun, not indicating possession or contraction. That it is a proper noun makes not a whit of difference. Thus, in this case, you want: the Marty Peretzes of the world. I would prefer that we not all adopt that annoying verbal tic made famous by the Conn Carrolls of the world, but if we must, can we at least get the punctuation right? For the proofreaders of the world, I remain, nitpickingly yours,

Agreed. This story on Hoffa at teamster.org may interest you: http://www.teamster.org/content/hoff...ee-free-choice

“This business about the Employee Free Choice Act taking away the secret ballot is nonsense spread by front groups for corporate fat cats who don’t want to give up their $16,000 wastebaskets,” Hoffa said.

“Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?” Hoffa said. “Town meetings in New England are as democratic as they come, and they don’t use the secret ballot. Elections in the Soviet Union were by secret ballot, but those weren’t democratic.”

It seems to me that secret ballots allow people to vote their conscience and are intrinsic to democracy. Necessary but not sufficient. This seems like another situation where something else is going on besides the issue that's actually being discussed. I'm not sure I know anyone that would argue in good faith that secret ballots aren't a basic tenet of democracy... It seems to me that there must be *some* way to prevent management from interfering in the elections that also allows people to vote their conscience. Whatever that system is - that's what we should be going for, rather than claiming

Quoting Simon Willard: I've been surprised by the remove-the-secret-ballot proposal. I feels dangerous to me. [...]

I'm a pro-union guy, but this part troubles me, too. I've never heard a good answer to this question. A while back, Wonderment pointed out that removing the requirement for a secret ballot did not mean a ban on it, which is not nothing, but other than that, I have the impression that the pro-union side dances away from this question. It seems to me that without a secret ballot, those employees who don't want their workplace to be unionized are potentially subject to just as much intimidation from the organizers as those who do would be from management.

Quoting bjkeefe: You are pluralizing a noun, not indicating possession or contraction. That it is a proper noun makes not a whit of difference. Thus, in this case, you want: the Marty Peretzes of the world.

I would prefer that we not all adopt that annoying verbal tic made famous by the Conn Carrolls of the world, but if we must, can we at least get the punctuation right?

For the proofreaders of the world, I remain, nitpickingly yours,

But, for all of us who aren't the bjkeefes's of the world whats one apostrophe more or less?

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm a pro-union guy, but this part troubles me, too. I've never heard a good answer to this question. A while back, Wonderment pointed out that removing the requirement for a secret ballot did not mean a ban on it, which is not nothing, but other than that, I have the impression that the pro-union side dances away from this question. It seems to me that without a secret ballot, those employees who don't want their workplace to be unionized are potentially subject to just as much intimidation from the organizers as those who do would be from management.

In the absence of a bright line, sometimes you have to retreat to a default position. If there's no additional data, for me that means far more likely pro-labor than pro-management.

Quoting gwlaw99: A must read analysis of the Chas Freeman story, that gives the full picture

I thought Fred Kaplan over at Slate had a much more substantive take on it. http://www.slate.com/id/2213468/ The bottom line seems to be that Obama and his biggest core of supporters don't particularly care to spend their political capital on this issue -- if solutions can be found without generating political controversy, they'll go for that option and nothing more. But the public seems increasingly aware that the Israel lobby is capable of forcing the issue. I think getting someone un-nominated is probably a huge waste of resources for the pro-Israel lobby. It was a symbolic victory at the cost of a worsened public perception of their cause. And as usual, Obama comes off seeming more reasonable than the average politician.

Quoting AemJeff: In the absence of a bright line, sometimes you have to retreat to a default position. If there's no additional data, for me that means far more likely pro-labor than pro-management.

That's pretty much where I'm at, but it still bugs me when my side can't make the case to my satisfaction. I'd rather be persuaded, so that I could help out with the agitation without feeling as though I were just acting out of in-group loyalty. If I got a call from VLWC Headquarters that said, "The truth is, this is an ends justifies the means thing," I'd be okay with that. But I'd like to know. Mr. Soros? (*Holds thumb near ear and pinkie near mouth.*)

Quoting AemJeff: But, for all of us who aren't the bjkeefes's of the world whats one apostrophe more or less?

I will punish you, sir, with my bare hands.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Also I find it highly humorous that many of the people who backed W so strongly, suddenly are worried about the US acting too pro-Saudi.

A curious paradox, I agree. But did W ever have the slightest inkling of what he was doing?

Quoting popcorn_karate: so what is a "moral" approach, in your opinion?

uselessly saying "tsk tsk" every time china does something you don't like doesn't seem to do much but make the people "tsk tsk"ing feel better about themselves.

Military options are off the table, right?

so - what do something economically damaging to both countries to prove a point (never mind the misery that comes from economic hardship..)?

The US has a lot of leverage over China. After the EU, we're their biggest export market! The threat of even the smallest of economic sanctions (perhaps human rights-based tariffs, or revoking MFN status) should be enough to affect some change. Furthermore, the Chinese regime is very conscious of projecting a positive image. In the run up to the Olympics, the US and other countries could have really changed things by highlighting some of the more grotesque practices of the Beijing rejime. Sadly, this opportunity was wasted. The Kissingerian approach isn't going to change anything. It's time to try something new.

Quoting bjkeefe: I will punish you, sir, with my bare hands.

I think, given the unblemished perfection of my entire prose output, that an allowance could be granted, on occasion..

Quoting AemJeff: I think, given the unblemished perfection of my entire prose output, that an allowance could be granted, on occasion..

There can be no quarter given for mockery of proper use of apostrophes.

Quoting bjkeefe: There can be no quarter given for mockery of proper use of apostrophes.

Could I have fifty cents for a poorly, placed comma? (If that's the going rate, I'm set for life!)

As a patrol person for the Grammar, Punctuation and Semantics Squad, I would ask, what did Matt W. mean at 5:40 by "literally alarming"?

Quoting Wonderment: As a patrol person for the Grammar, Punctuation and Semantics Squad, I would ask, what did Matt W. mean at 5:40 by "literally alarming"?

Clearly, he is among the AWFUL.

Quoting AemJeff: Could I have fifty cents for a poorly, placed comma?

(If that's the going rate, I'm set for life!)

I'm not going to let you nickel and dime me. The buck stops here.

"Progressive" Matt Yglesias: I support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

Agree that Matt Y was unpersuasive here, although I think "ignore" is too harsh.

Libertarian conservative Matt Welch: I also support an amoral, realist approach to China, which ignores human rights concerns.

Agreed that Matt W falls into the same trap from the libert-con side.

How depressing! Is there any room for foreign policy idealism left? Or has neoconservative buffoonery fully discredited American concern for the rights of people outside our borders?

The room is among NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. There's very little room at the State Dept or the UN, where self-interest and hypocrisy nearly always prevail. It will be interesting to see how Susan Rice does at the UN. She is a staunch human rights supporter, but I would not be surprised if she gets sucked into realpolitik-as-usual.

Matt Y. - it's a total slander to say that Eli Lake "doesn't give a shit" about democracy in China. Eli has a long history of supporting dissident movements in unfree countries across the globe. You owe him an apology.

Well, Eli has a shady history of supporting US aggression and Bushian terror, but I agree that Matt

I've thought the same thing as well, but corporate/business America, Europe, and Asia must lobby hard to not see Sino-U.S. relations change. I thought the U.S., for example, could have recognized Taiwan anytime before the Olympics because 1) China's threat to invade Taiwan is a total bluff, and 2) the Chinese gov't didn't want anything to mess up the run up to the Olympics, i.e., where they might actually lose the games. I still think this could be done with very little economic disruption happening, but the business class in America, Europe, and Asia doesn't want to risk it at all. I can't be sure China would do something irrational, but being that they're an autocracy or autocratic oligarchy, one cannot know for sure.

Quoting nikkibong: The US has a lot of leverage over China. After the EU, we're their biggest export market! The threat of even the smallest of economic sanctions (perhaps human rights-based tariffs, or revoking MFN status) should be enough to affect some change. Furthermore, the Chinese regime is very conscious of projecting a positive image. In the run up to the Olympics, the US and other countries could have really changed things by highlighting some of the more grotesque practices of the Beijing rejime. Sadly, this opportunity was wasted.

The Kissingerian approach isn't going to change anything. It's time to try something new.

ok, just to be clear, it sounds to me like you are advocating my 3rd option (do something economically damaging to both countries. ) as the "moral" option. doesn't that lead to deciding about the trade-offs of economic vs. political freedom? The economic damage in china would undoubtedly lead to far more human suffering than would result in the US from such a policy because Chinese people in general are living lower down on the economic security ladder (i.e. less food and medicine for chinese people vs. fewer gadgets for americans) I'm not sure where the right balance

You don't have to stand up to China by hurting them economically. If we all recognized Taiwan, my guess is, the poop wouldn't hit the fan like the Chinese tell us it would. Cause if the poop hits the fan over Taiwan, China loses out economically as well, i.e., loss of investments, shut-down factories, etc... and they don't want to lose out economically. The other thing is that positive change often must come about through pain and suffering. China, socially and politically, has umpteen million problems it will have to workout and it may be that some of these problems will have to happen through some horrible circumstances for certain people. Same can be said for the Middle East, Africa, or wherever.

Clearly, he is among the AWFUL.

Nice. I hope you will extend your patrol to the most egregious lapses of bilingual faux pas, since I have recently been hearing Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Keith Olberman (among others) use "mano a mano" as only a Yanqui could. The phrase means "hand-to-hand," but they think it means "man-to-man." I'll bet that even over at Fox News they know "hombre" means "man."

Quoting Wonderment: Nice. I hope you will extend your patrol to the most egregious lapses of bilingual faux pas, since I have recently been hearing Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Keith Olberman (among others) use "mano a mano" as only a Yanqui could. The phrase means "hand-to-hand," but they think it means "man-to-man." I'll bet that even over at Fox News they know "hombre" means "man."

Oooo, that's a good one, and I'm embarrassed not to have noticed it myself. Especially since my mother once went on a memorable tirade against chairwoman and chairperson -- it was her contention that the suffix -man in chairman also meant hand, as in guiding or controlling the board or committee or whatever, and therefore, chairman was gender-neutral. Sadly for your complaint, though, I think mano a mano has acquired idiomatic status in (American, at least) English, at which point, logic carries no weight. You might as well gripe about head over heels and I could care less. [Added] Isn't it also possible that the mano in mano a mano comes from hermano? I do remember having been addressed as 'mano many times when I lived in L.A. [Added Added] And Jeff, please note the apostrophe. ;^)

no its definitely from "hand" in spanish. from wikipedia: "Mano-a-mano is a Spanish and Italian construction meaning "hand to hand". It was used originally for bullfights where two matadors alternate competing for the admiration of the audience[1]. Current Spanish usage describes any kind of competition between two people where they both compete trying to outdo each other." so, although it is a bit off in english, its pretty close to the usual spanish meaning, as far as i can tell.

Isn't it also possible that the mano in mano a mano comes from hermano? I do remember having been addressed as 'mano many times when I lived in L.A.

No, "mano" as short for "hermano" is a Mexican (regional) colloquial usage. (The female version "mana" is much rarer.) But "mano a mano" probably goes back to the Romans (which helps explain your mother's theory). Interestingly, Colombian street slang (don't ask) borrows "man" from English using it (roughly) as "guy." Anglicisms are, of course, deplored (and used) everywhere.

Thanks for the additional lessons, pk and W.

Quoting Wonderment: Anglicisms are, of course, deplored (and used) everywhere.

Heh. We are all Spanglish speakers now, aren't we?

I'm a big fan of Matt Y, but I have to say that he got burned in this diavlog... Overall, he came off way too snarky, something I'm worried is happening to his blogging too. Speaking as a progressive, I actually wish he would have stayed at the Atlantic instead of joining what seems like an echochamber / conformity-inducing organization. Still a fan, though; hopefully he'd take this as constructive criticism.

Quoting bhf: I'm a big fan of Matt Y, but I have to say that he got burned in this diavlog... Overall, he came off way too snarky, something I'm worried is happening to his blogging too. Speaking as a progressive, I actually wish he would have stayed at the Atlantic instead of joining what seems like an echochamber / conformity-inducing organization. Still a fan, though; hopefully he'd take this as constructive criticism.

Huh. That's interesting. I liked him better when he was blogging on The Atlantic's website, precisely because he seemed more snarky there.

I'm not a Progressive, but have read Think Progress since it came out and you couldn't be more right I think. You nailed it on the head by describing it as an "echochamber / conformity-inducing organization". Matt Y wants to be more macher than polemicist though so he only has himself to blame.

Quoting Lyle: I'm not a Progressive, but have read Think Progress since it came out and you couldn't be more right I think. You nailed it on the head by describing it as an "echochamber / conformity-inducing organization".

TP is an organization pushing an agenda. Just because their writers have a coherent and shared vision does not mean there's any worth to your dismissal. Unless, of course, you're also prepared to say this about, say, The Corner, Hot Air, RedState, and The Foundry.

Yeah, I almost wrote that. There are conservative websites with similar problems. Some less snarky than others though.

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, I almost wrote that. There are conservative websites with similar problems. Some less snarky than others though.

Okay. I guess it's just a difference in definition. To me, a website that pushes a particular point of view, especially when concentrating on the policy level, is not an echo chamber. (Though their comments sections may well be.) And, as you probably already know, I'm a big fan of snark, which is something I find in short supply on TP's website, and on Matt's blog in particular.

Yeah, different definition I guess.