At least one major lobby group interest qualifies for exemption to the funding freeze, according to McCain spokesman:

http://www.jotusa.com/2008/10/mccains-funding-freeze.html

Two observations about NBC and Russia. Other readers might be in a position to comment on them:

1. Madow Show: Although liberal on most issues, the Washington consensus view that "Russian aggression" was the root cause of the Georgia crisis is not something the show seems to have probed. Watching one show in particular, I got the sense that this line of thinking was "out of bounds."

2. Tom Brokaw interview with Turner: Did anyone catch Brokaw's reaction when Turner questioned why the US had unilaterally decided to place Star Wars technology in E Europe?

Perhaps I am reading too much into the above points, but I get the impression that it's rather important for to network that viewers see the Russians in a certain way. I'm asking whether the network's general openness to liberal views does not stop when the topic turns to Russia.

Interestingly, US obsession with "Russian aggression" in the face of documented facts (Glenn has highlighted these) only makes any sense to me when I consider the bleak prospects for the US defense industry if it has no big power enemy to contend with. (NBC owner GE being a major defense contractor....) I explore this question in a blog post:

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/09/world-according-to-northrop-grumman.html

Fundamentally, I don't think it's OK for media companies to have far larger stakes in other industries like defense. I think it's wrong. It seems to me that the supposedly liberal tilt of MSNBC, could well be covering over a certain blind spot. (Glenn says viewers can take this bias into account, but how many will think to?). The bottom line is that should the US get into a war with Russia, none of the many "progressive issues" which MSNBC trumpets will matter anymore. Moreover, even a Cold War with Russia could lay to rest our hopes of tackling big issues like climate change. The major issues of our times require great power cooperation.

*****

One final observation (not related to Russia, but relates to the topic of NBC expert advisers): I noticed that Chris Matthews had this NSA agency guy on the show one day, and he was introduced as a regular MSNBC contributor. From what the guy was saying to Chris, I got a bit creeped out. It brought to mind Olbermann's U-turn on FISA the moment Obama caved.

Glenn wrote:

The prime barrier to most crimes -- the main deterrent -- is the threat of criminal punishment, of a lengthy prison term.

I am aware of some studies suggesting that the chance of apprehension, and not duration or intensity of punishment, is the crucial deterrent factor. The viewpoint Glenn echoes, the belief that the length of sentence is the "prime barrier" to crime, has likely helped to make the US the world's leading incarceration state.

For example, in the case of war crimes, whether Bush and Cheney get 5 years or 15 or 30 years is perhaps not nearly so important as that, if tried and convicted, the chief conspirators to torture serve some time. And that they serve any time at all is probably less important -- from the perspective of future deterrence -- than the mere fact that they be charged with war crimes and forced to stand trial.

I agree with a point Glenn keeps making: and that is, that if the US justice system is merciless toward the poor, why should it be lenient toward the leadership when they break laws?

If the overall US legal system was not so merciless towards law breakers, maybe the US leadership would be less reluctant to turn its own members over (to the laws it wrote).

It seems to me calling for "deterrence" and "equality under the law" are closely related, but not quite the same thing. With a view to the long term picture, it might be useful to distinguish one from the other.

Every so-called "Democratic strategist" on any news panel show now comes across as a mindless propagandist. It's as if the Democratic Party no longer seeks to represent the views of its members, only the leaders.

Comrad Shephard, peoples' commissar of the NPR informs us:

NPR uses a variety of descriptions, said (Comrad)Sweeney. For example:

* We may refer to the actions as 'harsh' or 'extreme' techniques;

* In context we may refer to what some call 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' This was the language used by the Bush administration and is used by people such as former CIA director Mike Hayden;

* We may refer to specific techniques -- such as waterboarding -- and note that the President and/or the Attorney General have said that waterboarding is torture;

* We may refer to specific techniques -- such as waterboarding -- without using a label like torture or harsh at all;

* We should remember that many of the controversial techniques were not waterboarding....

* And, we have on occasion used the word 'torture' unambiguously when this made sense in the context of the piece.

Summary: Various phrases or euphemisms are likely to be deemed acceptable so long as both past and former officials of the government of the United States have approved it.

As we all know, today's policy is modeled after practices of state media in the former Soviet Union. One difference: Under Perestroika, Soviet editors became lazy. Unlike the NPR editors today, they simply ignored the positions of former politburo chiefs. NPR considers the wishes of both present AND former central government authorities.

Take note comrads! You don't want to end up like Comrad Froomkin, do you?

Click "Jotman" for my answer.