a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church;

a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)

I disagree with you on Krugman's use of "heretic". Krugman's use of the term is spot on when referring to the republican party. Given the strong ideological bent of that party, their conflation of politics with religion, and their tendency to vote in pure blocks--no matter what--"heretic" is precisely the correct word.

the fact that Obama had to ask where the reporter was a time or two, after having called on them, clearly suggests he had a pre-arranged list of names, rather than a seating chart. or a seating chart which somehow indicated who should be asked. Regardless, it seems clear that the Obama administration is by and large using the same tools as previous administrations to shape the press pool to its purposes--exactly as Bush did.

Obama, like Bush before him, is using scripted news conferences to whip the press into line, and get them competing for access right off the bat. There is now a mad scramble going on within the press to see who can kiss the administration's ass most fervently, and be justly rewarded --with what? With a pre-arranged sequence of who gets to ask the questions.

But Greenwald either misses that connection or chooses to ignore all that, and instead shoots yet another torpedo into a ship (HMS WSJ) that already has so many holes in it you could slice it and sell it as cheese. Why not criticize Fox News, where you're at it?

Why not at least ask the question--"Why is Obama doing this?" Why not throw a bomb over that way.

previous comment-- first line quoted Greenwald, following text was mine.

preview...

Beltway reporters establish their access and favored status by serving as uncritical conduits for government claims.

Ironically, by abandoning their critical role in an attempt to gain or enhance access, reporters lose their power. They become, for all intents and purposes, castrated. Like cattle, or any other "kept" animal.

The above just seems so intuitively obvious that it's hard--sad-- to see so many reporters make that conscious choice to diminish their own power, influence and standing for the occasional sugar cube, and pat-on-the-head.

All around, a very bad day.

Would OLC have been the dept. reviewing this? What would the review process have been?

It's been ocurring to me that Israel's behavior can at least partially be explained by the fact it has no constitution, particularly nothing equivalent to our Bill of Rights. This gives individuals like Lieberman more ability to abuse certain Israeli citizens or dependents than they otherwise might have.

Israel's fault is they haven't been able to formulate one. Ours has been that we're ignoring the one we have.

I saw the Nova show titled "Spy Factory". It seemed a competent summary of the story, but nothing really new. I think it would have benefitted by at least some reference to the 4th amendment, why that is a good thing to have and follow, and maybe some review of the Church committee history.

As it stands, I suspect that many might view the show and respond by saying "so what"?

I especially like the zombie-undead theme. This fits well with the "Daschle would suck off a corpse for a cheeseburger" thing. Daschle might well have gotten something through. But man, he would have had to work for it. I believe a useful meme is developing.

The reason defenders of Bush policies rely on such patently fallacious "reasoning" ...is because they know that these media stars have neither the ability nor the inclination to devote even a molecule of critical thought to what they're being told.

"We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here". The Bush administration said this quite literally for years. Literally hundreds and hundreds of google hits on this phrase. No serious questioning of this logic ocurred.

Spain not only stopped "fighting them over there"--they also committed the sin of "cut and run". But then again, they are a few centuries past their golden-empire days, while we're still in ours.

Apparently so. And I see Daschle already has his ice skates laced up.

Wouldn't it be great to see Howard Dean given a chance.

How about the case law regarding Corps. as persons? Wouldn't that all have to be overturned as well?

I'm not arguing against yours and Jim's point ness. I personally do not believe Corporations should be viewed under the law as people. But it is hard to see how that gets overturned at this stage of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0u0LHuB4-4

If he stayed, he'd be flayed.

Isn't this a bit academic, so long as corporations are legally considered "persons" in the US? Lobbyists are simply professional consultants helping corporate "persons" express themselves freely to their own elected government.

I'll be go to hell.