Burning down a building in this case is barely a crime. It's more of a call to attention. All over the world we watch, some of us participate, in protests and demonstrations that involve this kind of direct action. And it's no big deal. If there were more of this it could only be a good thing.

Um...yes, it's still a crime.

The issue is how much it can really be considered terrorism or not.

My take on it is that if this is being prosecuted and treated as genuine terrorism, then the threshhold for what constitutes "terrorism" is being applied in a horribly arbitrary way, as many acts of much worse nature for the same purpose of pushing an ideological and/or political point aren't treated as such.

What is it that allows a person to feel no shame?

The fact that no one "important" tells them that they're wrong, but instead actively heaps adulation on them?

Because lets face it. All the "important", "serious" people love the war. It's just a matter of pacing and implementation to them. So who cares about semantics about what's a 'civil war' or not? Reality-based thinking is so pre-Reagan.

That's a very apt descriptor...though I have to point out something.

Cassandra was a bit of a tragedy, due to the fact that she was burdened by tragic facts that no one would heed much to their own demise.

But this is an even greater tragedy, because not only does it effect those who listen, but those who don't. The only ones who aren't effected are the Anti-Cassandras, who continue to get full license to spew their idiocy with all due respect afforded to them no matter what.

that it would have been a BETTER book if it had toppled the Big Myths on BOTH sides of politics.

After all, hypocrites exist in BOTH parties.

There's one key difference:

The Democratic party often times is called on for its hypocrisy, especially by the media. The Republicans are CELEBRATED for their hypocrisy. The degree of accountability between Democrats and Republicans are staggering, especially with, as -zack- pointed out, Democrats not only failing to hit Hypocritical Repubilcans back on their frames, but actually seeking to LIVE UP to the caricatures of Democrats the GOP promotes.

Mukasey basically just said that FISA is the reason 9/11 happened.

So...if that's the case, if FISA's inadvertant assistance of Al-Qaida really allowed the holes that the attackers were able to exploit to pull this off....why now?

Why reveal something like this only now? Why is FISA being taken care of only now? Why is such change to our surveillance being undertaken ONLY now, after the program came to light thanks to one of the few instances of investigative journalism in these days?

All of these questions add up to one larger over-arching question: When the hell will these fools stop exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 in order to fearmonger for their ill-thought, ill -gotten policies?

Salon has been around a long time and most people - I'd say all press people -- know it and take it seriously, seriously enough. That's one of the benefits of writing here. I don't call and say "Hi, I'm a lefty blogger writing for my blog." I call and say: "This is Glenn Greenwald, and I'm working on a story for Salon . . . ."

It's not the 'blogger' part they look down upon.

It's the 'lefty' part. After all, Instahack and Powerloons get to have policy meetings with the President, whereas you can't even get a straight word from the 9/11 commission. You know...IOKIYAR and all that rot.

This whole claim has zero credibility, for the obvious reasons raised above (Why in the hell would someone endorse someone, then flat out say "I don't think he can win!"), why would you believe an anonymous 'Clinton Associate' on the matter, given the campaign's noxious 'kitchen sink' tactics as of late...

And finally, one thing no one's brought up....WHY, oh WHY would you take the word of Mark Halperin, the man who bowed down to Drudge and Hugh Hewitt in promising to skew coverage for conservatives for ABC? He flat out believes that the media is unabashedly liberal (a laughable thing at that) and promised to be more favorable to conservatives in order to 'balance' it out...and if I remember correctly, also was the hack that predicted a 2006 blowout by REPUBLICANS.

Thing is, I'm convinced the media isn't aimed at most normal people or voters. It's aimed to convince and coerce two specific sects of people:

1) The hardcore and easily influenced chunk of voters that still take the media at their absolute word. The chunk that still believes Saddam was involved in 9/11, and that Bush is still a quality president.

2) POLITICIANS. The media, I have become convinced, has made it their part and parcel to convince politicians to act a certain way, by coloring their coverage and reporting, and then basically saying 'see, this is what normal people see, and this is what they believe. Now you don't want to look like you're on the wrong side of the issue, don't you?'. This, combined with sycophancy, is the only way I can really fathom how so many Democrats, at the least, remain so willfully spineless and wobbly on issues they should stick together on.

The sad part about the whole tax thing too is that it's not even the actual EFFECTIVE tax percentage, since for many with that amount of wealth, only a small amount of their yearly income actually ends up taxed.