>>Finkelstein is a traitor to the Jewish people

I guess telling the truth now makes you a traitor.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. I am saying that the military industrial complex may have a hand in pro-Israel lobbying as a function of their vested economic interest. It is something that should be thought about when discussing what motivates the US to aid Israel to the point of harming its own interests. You are agreeing, but opine that it is not worth commenting about. That's your opinion, of course.

I'm not trying to argue, just explain myself. I suppose my comment didn't add much to the discussion either. In any case, I'm with you brother (or sister, as the case may be).

>>I'll do the google search anyway.

LOL. I doubt it will shut him up though.

I've found it quite interesting that "fake" news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are actually more informative, more insightful, and much more adversarial than the real news.

The cover provided by the comedic format has been used extremely well by Stewart and Coblert to make some strong political statements.

The bits of Colbert's speech you mention are a perfect example. It isn't really comedy at all, it is rather a pointed political statement that happens to be funny too. Somehow the comedic aspect allows it to pass through the usual media filter.

Thank you Glenn.

I read the statements concerning this poor kids treatment. There is no way this kid is ever going to be a functioning adult - the psychological damage will be severe and permanent.

While on an intellectual level I understand how this happened, at an emotional, gut level it is explosive. I makes me want to put Bush and Co. on the rack myself, to exact revenge for this young man. The depth of the cruelty displayed in this case, which we know is only one of many, is absolutely stunning.

Everyone involved in this despicable enterprise should be tried and convicted, sure. But that's not enough - while we can't torture them in turn (although I must say my base emotions yearn for exactly that), examples must be made of them. They should absolutely be subjected to public humiliation, made subjects of disgust and revulsion, and given the absolute maximum punishment allowable.

...does something tangible to hold those at the top accountable for this systematic torture regime or he will not have my vote 2012 regardless of how much good he does going forward

I agree wholeheartedly. Hell, he didn't even get my vote this time around, precisely because he didn't condemn the Bush lawlessness forcefully enough during the campaign. I'll be very hesitant to vote for any Democrats going forward too - I'm absolutely disgusted at the way they put their collective tails between their legs and helped Bush do this awful stuff.

If you are ever going to draw a line in the sand, a red line that cannot be crossed, this has got to be it.

I suppose it is nice that a majority of Americans polled think it is proper to investigate Bush and his cronies. Practically speaking, that might make it more likely to occur, of course.

But philosophically it shouldn't matter a whit. We don't poll the citizenry over whether someone suspected of committing murder should be tried for his or her crime. You don't get to appeal to the community to avoid paying a speeding ticket. If you break the law, you're supposed to suffer the consequences. This just isn't a topic on which the prevailing mood among the population should make a difference.

>Why do you think that is? Is there maybe a single man -- a >Man of Greatness and Light -- whose rising has parted these >tides?

>Are you sure you can start commenting here yet? Have you said >your morning prayers to him already?

Y'know, in general I agree with your sentiment. But sometimes authority is justified.

Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent has been mentioned here recently in the context of your chat with Jay Rosen. Chomsky can also shed light on this issue. If he's not an anarchist, he at least is sympathetic to anarchist thought, particularly the notion that all authority must justify itself.

Sometimes it can. When a parent prevents a child from running into the middle of a busy street, despite the child's strong desire to do so, this is a case of jusfifiable authority. The child is simply not aware of the potential danger, or not fully capable of weighing the danger appropriately. So the parental authority is justified.

Right now we are in need of an authority with broad powers, not subject to the legislative process, not subject to popular will, to deal with the twin crises of climate change and peak oil. People are simply not going to vote for a significant reduction in their standard of living, at least not the present population of the US. And yet that is what is needed to avoid planetary catastrophe.

We need an institution that can act with very few constraints, in direct opposition to what people would vote for, for their own good. This does not necessitate a dictator, necessarily, but some kind of centralized authority is an absolute necessity if disaster is to be averted. I realize this goes against what most of us have assumed is proper and good, but the unique circumstances of the day really do justify this kind of authority.