Yesterday, I noted Glenn Greenwald's righteous gasp at Newsweek's apparently craven view of how to use the term "terrorism". Kudos to Newsweek for airing their internal debate, and kudos for those in the email chain who stood up for intellectual clarity and consistency, rather than pandering to whatever trends now exist in the MSM. But re-reading the email chain, there is also obviously some meta-heavy irony going on as well, although emails don't always catch that kind of thing. So here's a simple question: is this view of the managing editor ironic or not? Is she mocking craven and inconsistent and obviously racist distinctions in the MSM or is she sincerely endorsing them? To tell you the truth, I can't tell. Maybe you can:

Here is my handy guide:

Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist

Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists

All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

(Note that as recently as March 6, 2008, a group who burned three new homes in an environmentally sensitive area, killing not a soul, were called eco-terrorists. In Newsweek.)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.