I think you should stress that one of the signatories of that ad is 2005 Nobel-prize winning economist Thomas Schelling from the University of Maryland. He (per umd.edu) “enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis". He ‘has published highly influential works in a number of areas including nuclear proliferation and arms control, terrorism… His work on nuclear deterrence helped shape Cold War strategies’. Can someone tell me how can someone get more qualified than him?

Here’s more.. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1145

I think you should stress that one of the signatories of that ad is 2005 Nobel-prize winning economist Thomas Schelling from the University of Maryland. He (per umd.edu) “enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis". He ‘has published highly influential works in a number of areas including nuclear proliferation and arms control, terrorism… His work on nuclear deterrence helped shape Cold War strategies’. Can someone tell me how can someone get more qualified than him?

Here’s more.. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1145

perhaps you can elaborate on the underlying principles involved when hyperlinking to another blog. For example: The purpose of his blog is to promote political viewpoints that he agrees with in an effort to inform/convince/persuade an audience. By explicitly linking to such an essay, he has consciously decided that he wishes to share the message from that essay with his audience. This (like Reynolds argues) doesn't necessarily imply that he supports the message, but it does imply that he felt the information pertinent enough to share with his audience. However, the only way he could truly argue that he meant no endorsement is if his blog was strictly unopinionated. Which it is not. Therefore, for Reynolds to relay a message such as this without refutation is an implicit 'soft' endorsement.

I imagine it would be akin to me standing on a soapbox beside the sidewalk. Then blasting a sermon of Fred Phelps from a boombox atop my head to all the passerbys... You can't know for certain if i endorse the message, but any rational person will sufficiently convinced absent a refutation.

i think most of you assume that Glenn is some 'liberal/progressive' because he so often focuses his effort on the right wing demagogues. I must disagree. I'm about as conservative as they come and I fully support and appreciate Mr. Greenwald's reasoned posts. My belief is that Glenn's purpose is purely to eliminate the obstacles that prevent substantive debate in this country. I don't believe that he implicitly supports the messages of the 'liberal noise machines'.

I hope you've contacted Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Within a few days, they already have over 60,000 signed up and we are a fiercely passionate constituency with deep pockets. I don't think they would shy away from this fight

Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments before the US House of Representatives, June 20, 2008:

Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

You're better when you don't jump into the "look how stupid the other side is" fray. There are a million other topics your article could have brought attention to today, but you chose to bash some commentators at TNR?

Glenn,

I'd be a bit more cautious if you plan on destroying the personality of Tucker Carlson, especially if you care at holding together your Strange Bedfellows Coalition. Although Carlson is ideologically a rather slippery fellow, he does hold strong ties to Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. He is also speaking at Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic next month. Just a word of caution, even though I personally don't trust the guy.

Glenn,

I'm glad you have the propensity to take simple requests for awareness as do-or-die absolutisms. Otherwise, perhaps you could focus more of that brilliant energy on articles relevant to the entirety of your audience, not simply liberal vs. neoconservatice squabbles. I thought the Establishment media was shite anyway?

And this article finds a way to get even worse... Please Glenn, for the sake of your non-liberal audience, stay far far away from the left-right false dichotomy.