Nobody in Radiohead has ever indicated that the group thought it was somehow sticking it to the Man with this. Their stated reasons were, essentially, that they wanted to get the music out easily and quickly, and they thought it would be interesting to see what people paid when the buyer, not the seller, determined the price.

The idea that they were advocating for every musician to give their music away for free is ludicrous. They have never said anything of the sort. Other people may have heralded In Rainbows as some kind of revolution, but Radiohead never did.

Incidentally, I think an under-appreciated lesson in all this is not that you don't need a CD that people can buy in stores, but rather that you don't need a major label to put out a CD that people can buy in stores. This isn't 1983 or even 1993; you can buy an indie label's CD at Barnes and Noble now.

Which makes one wonder - what do we need the major labels for? The only answer I can see is their ability to "break" new artists. But that's a job for a PR firm or an advertising agency; the major labels are looking like pointless middlemen, which is the worst kind of thing to be as soon as everyone realizes that your services are no longer needed, because you have no other services to offer.

First of all, don't take on Ezra Klein. You're not up to the task.

Second, what part of Ron Paul is an abhorrent, right-wing extremist do you not understand?

It's not just about abortion - it's about the totality of this utterly repugnant human being. He is a right-wing extremist.

Let me say that again, maybe it will sink in: He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist. He is a right-wing extremist.

Understand yet?

Maybe you, too, are a right-wing extremist, as many have speculated. Maybe you sympathize with Ron Paul because you sympathize with all of his positions, not just the war.

The fact that Paul gets a single issue right does not justify the praise you've heaped on him. You know who else is opposed to the war? David Duke! And I'm sure Charles Lindbergh would have opposed it to! Hell, President Ahmadinejad is opposed to American imperialism as well - when do we get to read your praise of him?

Every once in a while, I think about subscribing to Salon. Then I read offensive nonsense like Greenwald's post, and I think better of it.

Nice try, Glenn. You'll have to do better than "I found a woman who agrees with me."

I understand that you, as a gay man, have no personal stake in reproductive freedom. But it's morally atrocious of you to marginalize the issue just because it doesn't affect you personally.

If you want to hold Harry Reid's feet to the fire for his views on abortion, great. But you don't really want to do that, do you? You want to use him as a shield when people criticize you for ignoring Ron Paul's devotion to forced pregnancy.

You know what gives you away, Glenn? Your un-ironic use of the term "pro-life." It betrays you as someone who buys the right-wing propaganda on abortion.

You don't really care about women's reproductive freedom, do you Glenn? Just be honest and admit it.

With regard to Edwards, yes, the press doesn't pay enough attention to him. Huckabee gets tons of press. Greenwald complains because it's not substantive. I have to wonder which candidates Glenn thinks are getting substantive treatment by the press. Seems to me the whole campaign is a dog and pony show. Does anyone really believe this is limited to only a few candidates?

Ron Paul gets a disproportionate amount of media attention, because his candidacy is kind of out of left-field (an anti-war Republican?). But Ron Paul does not have "any meaningful prospect of success," to use Glenn's words. Despite Glenn's continuing Ron Paul boosterism, the idea that Paul enjoys "increasingly extraordinary support" is an outright lie. Paul has not reached even double-digit support anywhere.

Glenn's claim thus reduces to this: Ron Paul has a lot of money, so he deserves more press. A candidate's importance can be determined by how much money he raises.

Get this through your head: Ron Paul is a joke of a candidate. Hell, he's a joke of a human being. He is this generation's Lyndon Larouche. He's not "anti-establishment," and he shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact that you do so just illustrates your complete political obliviousness. Go back to writing about the law; at least you know something about that.

Burton writes:

"Murray explained to me that Bruce lost his personal (episodic) memories, but retained his semantic (impersonal factual knowledge of the world, such as that a Chevrolet is a type of automobile) memories. ... But there's more to situational memory than this arbitrary distinction. Knowing the dictionary definition of police isn't sufficient to predict how the police might or might not respond under a wide variety of circumstances, or even if they can be trusted."

Why would you so easily move from semantic knowledge to knowledge of dictionary definitions? Semantic information is vastly richer than anything that could be captured in a dictionary definition, and indeed a vast reservoir of semantic knowledge is necessary to even understand what the dictionary definition says.

A dictionary definition is nothing more than a rough guide to the conventions governing the correct and incorrect use of individual words. Understanding what a sentence or concept means is not reducible to knowing a list of definitions.

A small child understands the meaning of all kinds of words and phrases, but could probably not provide you the dictionary definition of very many of them.