It would be perfectly valid to suggest that there are complexities to the issue of whether a veiled woman can be properly identified while veiled in a photo, and to argue against it. But the language you quote is despicable, and a typical example of the dark underbelly of the blogosphere.
One of the things, if not the thing that most bothers me about the political blogging world is my belief that the more you find a niche, and toss more and more extremist meat to it, the more successful and popular you will become as readers desiring that hunger to be filled flock to your niche.
A corollary is my impression that many bloggers, over a year or two, however possibly subconsciously, recognize that "that" sort of material is what gets them strokes from their readers, and thus become more and more extreme as they read more and more of that material, and praise for it, and thus walk further and further from decency and reality.
This is very much a non-partisan issue. Tell me I'm wrong?
So what the hell did I do to attract contrary ornery commenters like you and baa and Magik? Name your red meat dammit!
Yes, I think you're right. I think the bigger bloggers suffer from something else in addition, which is an overrepresentation of idiot opponents in their inboxes.
But yes, we try very had to be aggressively eclectic, though there is a temptation to write what I know will bring in the hits. But that's no fun if the people commenting aren't contrary and ornery.