"Cheney's career testifies to his skill at backstairs intrigue."

"backstairs intrigue?" more like "dirty tricks."

Why bother with competence when you can bully and blackmail?

Pelosi said the CIA lied to her. The CIA did *not* inform her.

The CIA said Bob Graham was informed. Graham sez the CIA is lying.

Is the the CIA lying or not?

Everything else is a damn distraction.

"the Democrats are willing, ready and able to investigate Pelosi"

Investigate Pelosi for what, jaywalking?

What a load of distracting crap. Cheney ordered the sodomizing of children, not Pelosi.

MySQL's reputation has improved over the years as more developer-friendly features have been added. I don't think an optional caching attachment is going to sully MySQL for developers. System administrators might snark about it, but how much pull do they really have anyway? :)

to have never heard this spin.

Why is this common-as-dirt propaganda being sold as special insight?

Does the cute picture make it special?

it shines a bright light exposing wingnut trolls, concern trolls and other forms of intellectual lowlife as the feeble minds they are.

Chomsky is too clear and direct for them to understand, much less refute.

Of course, it's too much to expect fresh Chomsky on a regular basis. But you could print one of his essays every month. They're still relevant.

that was a fast troll deletion!

I was going to respond to Rangoon Chicken's woe-is-me post, but it was rightly zapped as too stupid and hateful.

But I've noticed over the years how weak-minded people, when confronted with unvarnished truths like Chomsky dispenses, will throw the baby out with such comments as "I guess America is the most evil country in the world!" or "we should just nuke ourselves."

It's desperate and pitiful.

"we were going to have a chicken dinner, but it got well." - Homer and Jethro

"Noam has never had anything good to say about the US and never will. " is a great example of the "Boo-Hoo! He's-so-mean! school of Chomsky critique.

What a pathetic rejoinder.

In general, Chomsky:

1. Is very good at keeping his obvious moral outrage from infecting his presentation with sarcasm and overstatement, but: he's not perfect. If he could be perfect, he would probably do marginally better with the MSM.

2. Tends to dismiss the impact of individuals in world affairs, preferring to focus on purely systemic aspects. Sometimes this tendency harms his analysis of singular events.

3. Is unwilling to jeopardize his credibility by engaging in supposition or conspiracy theory.

I suppose #3 isn't really critical; Chomsky is a bit conservative in these regards.

My critique of Chomsky was just something I wanted to write down to demonstrate to myself ( and anyone who cared to read it, ) that a serious Chomsky fan ( myself ) could have substantive criticism.

My admiration of Chomsky actually comes from his work in logical linguistics, which informs the field of computer science. ( look up the genesis of Extended Backus-Naur form for specification of computer language syntax. )

And you're right about the muddy waters surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theory. I imagine if I wanted to cover up my own conspiracies I would hire people to broadcast ridiculous theories to discredit the whole business.

I don't fault Chomsky for not getting into these theories, it's not really his bag. Leave that to the Alex Jones of the world ( who smells like one of those agent-provocateurs, to me anyway.. )

for clear and sensible rebuttals to murky and confused assertions.

What a great pick! I'm looking forward to the right wing meltdown and hissy fit... ooh they're going to get soooo MAD!

They'll stop their little chicken feet and squak their little chicken squaks and cry like babies!

And Chicken Rangoon will lead the way!!!

There used to be a good bit of humour in a black man speaking about "plain-folks" black issues in a crisp, loquacious intellectual style.

I get the author too, and he's right. That fun is over now.

Equality has it's downside.

Intelligence as in IQ? So what!!

Republicans reminded us in 2000 and 2004, when a man of deficient IQ was awarded the Presidency, that judgment is more important.

So if being a Supreme Judge isn't about judgment, what is?

With Wall Street financial shenanigans so tightly wound into all our legitimate economy, doing the "right thing" morally would have thrown our whole country into chaos, or so the Gods of Wall Street said to Obama and the Congress.

So, the question is, if you were in Obama's shoes, would you risk the stability of the whole country by forcing the hand of the all-powerful Wall Street barons?

Would you, really?

Really?

( if you would, you're either a dangerous moralizing demagogue or a reckless fool )

The right wing engages in so much projection that the word is insufficient. It's more like rose-colored glasses; they're only capable of seeing devious, underhanded bias.

Yeah, I can imagine a white man saying "White men will, by virtue of their experiences, be able to make better decisions than Latinas?"

Not only could he say it, he could get away with it.

Go cry on someone else's shoulder, you whining whitey.

It's a big rush to be righteous and angry. Guys like OReilly are addicted to it.

Anti-abortionists are moral cowards; they hide behind their outrage about dead babies-that-never-were so they can avoid real problems, like real babies-that-were-born killed by their favorite policies.

It's because a potential child is also the father's child.

But nevertheless, it's the womans choice, IMHO.

'If John Yoo or Jay Bybee were to be attacked by a deranged leftist radical,"

Stop advocating violence!

You wing nuts are all the same.

( There is in reality only one Salon Troll, with 100 user accounts and an endless supply of bad coffee. )