I sympathize with your points, but the main thing I was saying was that it's good to have an understanding of rhetoric to combat it. Plato pushed the "Sophists are baaaaaad" line that has stayed with the West for a long time. But they can still be mined for things of value. "Man is the measure of all things" (from Protagoras) sounds like secular humanism to me, and flies in the face of "One Nation Under God(tm)."

If I have to choose the morally relativistic, diversity-tolerating, rhetoric-flourishing agnosticism of sophism versus the moral absolutism and elitist posturing of Straussians, I think the former is more suited to liberalism -- that's why the Left eventually abandoned the authoritarianism at the heart of Marxism, I think.

But one of the things the Left has lost over the years is a compelling narrative, stirring stories -- lofty rhetoric, in other words. We end up with Hillary Clintonesqe triangulese, or else Edwardsian wonkspeak, and wonder why people don't get excited about those candidates. I think Obama has done better in rhetorically invoking themes that excite people, although whether it'll be enough is unknown.

A broader understanding of rhetoric, and ability to use it, would help our society, not hurt it -- Fox News is able to flourish precisely because people think they're getting news, when they're really getting spin. Fox certainly isn't diverse, tolerant, humanistic, morally relativistic, or agnostic in their "fair and balanced" reporting -- those are qualities the Sophists had aplenty.

I dunno. It's not really so shocking, is it? People are so busy trying to eke out a living, it kind of fits in with the spectator role the Beltway set prefer for the people, under the current system, akin to tuning in every now and then, like fairweather fans at a baseball game on a sunny day; one minute watching a pitch, the next minute grabbing some red hots, another minute talking to a friend, watching a flyout, then maybe getting a beer. Tune in, tune out. Not good for a democracy, but until people get fired up to get interested, what can you do? Wag your finger at'em?

I liked Rick Perlstein's writing of Pew and other polls in the Nation a lot more, which contains good news I hope SALON writes about...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

I'd like for Democrats, progressives, liberals to take note of those stats, take heart, and run with the implications of those numbers, versus sucking their teeth at people not knowing the Chief Justice -- what's more unfortunate is that the Democratic Senators who helped confirm him didn't seem to know who he is.

This is what passes for a DLC-type handslap, I guess, when what they should be slapping on Cheney's hands are a pair of cuffs. Impeach him, already. What's left for Cheney to do, besides firing up the Constitution with some kerosene and matches? Declaring martial law, maybe?

As long as they continue to surprise, they're not boring. I'll certainly be curious about what the campaign's next message is.

No, they're boring. Very, very boring. But they can afford to be boring, right? Running an exciting campaign is what somebody does if they've nothing to lose, I guess. The Clintons are too tied up with big money and DLC notables to take real risks in their campaign.

I'll be surprised if they end the Bush tax cuts and move us back toward demand-side economics and progressive taxation, instead of the relentlessly regressive supply-siding that keeps driving the Bush League -- enough tinkle-on economics, already!

Has the jail cell she occupied been properly decontaminated? Biohazard signs all over the place? Guys in hazmat suits spraying bleach around the place? That's more newsworthy.

Law for thee, but not for he, I guess. Like so many reactionary groups in this country, the Federalist Society's Saint Bork is all about a sliding scale of liberty, based on one's income and position in the society -- the most liberty at the top, and the least liberty at the bottom. That's their conception of law, so his pushing for a lawsuit is in keeping with his authoritarian beliefs, since he numbers himself among the worthies deserving of the liberty of redress in court, a favor he would like eliminated among the rascal multitudes.

I'm sick of the Federalist Society, the Arlington Group, the Council for National Policy, and all of the other secretive, paranoid, autocratic, reactionary groups where these creeps network and continue to work on their off-the-shelf government coup.

They're all about the noblesse, without the oblige.

So, Cheney's excuse for keeping the attendees and discussion of the energy conference (when was that, way back in '01, I think?) secret was because of Executive Privilege, not unlike that which the Executive Branch hides behind when it wants to keep things out of sight.

But now his excuse for avoiding oversight from the National Security Archive is because he's claiming, what Legislative Privilege, now, and is saying that mandates that bind the Executive Branch don't apply to him?

He's playing a shell game, here, taking advantage of the unique position of the Vice Presidency to evade accountability and scrutiny wherever it arises, whether from the Legislative or Executive Branches -- he's playing one side off the other, hiding behind whichever branch serves his needs of the moment, with the net result being:

Dick Cheney doesn't obey the law; Dick Cheney doesn't reveal anything to anybody, anytime.

Impeachable?

I think the GOP has law scholars on retainer to help them figure out how to violate the law as effectively as possible.

Since, no doubt, Cheney serves with "the full faith and confidence" of the President, and Gonzo has fatally compromised the Justice Department, I guess it falls to the Legislative Branch to bring him to justice, right?

So, bring him to justice, already, before his pacemaker battery runs out. Get him, Congress. Go for him, Senate. C'mon, folks. This is getting more and more ridiculous.