... for that legal clarification.

Re "harm": it could legitimately be argued that the Yes Men's announcement of a change in Chamber position to recognize global climate change would actually have the effect of reversing the tide of members who have quit. This would count as a gain, not a loss, for the US Chamber.

Now, if they had actually reversed their position, it would have been even better. But I just see this boneheaded lawsuit as another reason for members to get out.

And - as the Elephant Guy noted, the lawsuit is basically a way to harass and impoverish the Yes Men. It doesn't need to be legitimate to do this. This is how the big corporations always do it.

It can be real nice, having more money than sense.

Let's repeat that:

"They march in and are squished and more bugs walk across the smeared innards of box-elder brethren and nobody is the wiser, the message is never passed on toward the rear.

If we stopped sending more box-elder bugs, it would mean that all those bugs who have died, have died in vain. We must honor their sacrifice by sending more bugs to be squished!

What we need is a surge! Send in another 20,000 or 30,000 bugs. And if that fails, do it again! With 600,000 bugs on the ground (heh, heh), we'll finally be able to hold that house!

We can achieve victory, and we must, to make the neighborhood safe for our bug-kind. No price is too high, no sacrifice too great. Onward to victory!

Thanks, Salon for occasionally printing these intelligent, worth-reading interviews out of Spiegel. Had an American journalist interviewed former President Gore, we would have enjoyed questions like:

• Do you and Bill Clinton ever talk about Monica?
• Does Hillary still hate you? and how do you FEEL about that?
• Just how much do you weigh now? You put on, what, 100 pounds?
• And you're getting bald, too?
• Just what is your electric bill now? Ever considered living homeless on the street to decrease your carbon footprint?

How about it, Salon? Can we see more Spiegel translations, or even more Salon interviews like this? Or has your grotesque website redesign (Slower! More annoying ads! And more of them!) depleted your reporting budget?

Last night, the "enlarge" link didn't work, and it still doesn't today. I assume this is all we get.

Frankly, maybe it's time to just switch to Spiegel (see Al Gore interview comments) ... I've already turned to the BBC for my news and analysis. These days, them furriners know more about the US than those of us who actually LIVE here.

What does this mean?!?

(duh...) I kept thinking conventional plumbing.

I like the observation about how you've got your own little terrorist op going. Are you stalking Mr Bush, Mr Cheney, Mr Rumsfeld, Yoo, Feith, Addington, etc as well?

And if not, why not? Are they "harder targets"? Both capable - and likely - to hit back?

The "enlarge" link works!

Yeah - feel happy; your stalking and poisoning the threads has worked.

Have the torturers been punished yet? Noooo - but that's not the point, is it? They're the "hard targets" - too likely to sue for harassment, pull strings in the super-legal crony system of employers and bureaucrats. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo, Feith - not to mention McChrystal - who actually ordered the torture get a free ride.

While you bravely pick on the old guy in red sox.

Isn't it strictly illegal to record someone without first informing them, particularly in a commercial setting? You're the lawyer; before taking any of these bizarre revenge fantasies, better check it out.

I'd also suggest that you scrap Mr Tennis's suggested self-righteous, pompous, droning rant. This kind of bone-headed moronic advice is why I've stopped reading his column, until today. I'm going to discontinue reading it again now. Bye!

Who else, Prosecute Keillor, are you stalking in the pursuit of justice? Anyone who's actually guilty? Or just the soft targets?

But what about the stalking? Who else are you stalking, Prosecute Keillor? Is Mr Keillor the only one who's earned your hands-on attention?

Why not Cheney? He's publically visible enough. Bush? I hear you can get in to see him for a mere $4.95. Yoo? He teaches classes at an open-to-the-public university. Addington? Rumsfeld? Feith? McChrystal?

Or is it only Garrison Keillor? A tottering old guy, who's had heart surgery and a stroke?

This tragic and horrible incident shows

• How incredibly effective a person who has been trained to kill can be; they'll miss him in on the battlefront
• How weak US military readiness is, if something like this can happen on one of the biggest, most heavily-armed bases, and not be stopped until over 40 people have been shot. They had to call the cops?!?

It's all about eyes on the screen. The money comes from advertisers, and they want people watching that screen intently, in real time, so their ads will be seen.

Eyes on the screen - it's what television "programming" is all about. What we poor sap consumers think of as "content" is just the delivery package for the ads.

As such, "rumor-mongering, speculation and falsehoods" fit the bill, and are significantly cheaper than reporting.

Bad reporting thus drives out the good, accurate stuff. Capitalism 101. It's how "Free Enterprise" works.

Maybe we're overdue for a little socialism, eh?