Face it, Wallner, your approach to 'political commentary' is pretty much uninformed by anything except the way you'd like things to be. Today, for example, you're declaring Harper's - the first magazine to call for Bush's impeachment, if memory serves - to be 'fairly conservative'. That's not a matter of opinion, that's just goddamn fucking stupid. There are no shades of gray here - that is a stupid statement to be making. Stupid. Stoo-peed.

Or your claim that SEIU was supporting Maureen O'Connell over Craig Johnson because the latter was too conservative. I got emails about that one (not for the first time), requesting explanations, and an apology, because you seemingly originated on Daily Gotham. I told people (note the plural) that I was in no way responsible for your stupidity. Steve Perez set you right on that, but all to no avail.

Or your current screed on Room Eight about how we shouldn't be following election law in the 40th - this because, presumably, that's a fantastic precedent to be setting. Let me just say that your reputation in New York blogdom is firmly established, Wallner.

So yeah, I take whatever you say with a view to your prior track record, and I'd suggest others do the same. You'd predict pretty pink ponies flying across the sky if that struck your fancy, Wallner; and while others might be constrained by what is called 'observable reality', clearly, you labor under no such fetters.

Sorry if that's personal, but I believe that your unique way of approaching things should occasionally be put into some semblance of context. The context being, of course, that you generally have no clue what you're talking about.

You're welcome.