Here's a perfect example of the absolutely disingenuous nature of Sharter28%. It quotes a purportedly supportive snippet of [whatever].

ROFLMAO. Perhaps you should consider that this bit....

According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

Then makes a flatly inaccurate assertion predicated upon the selected snippet.

...renders ANYONE getting federal money off limits from commenting on anything!

-- shooter242

Sharter conveniently omits the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH of the piece it quoted, which goes on to state

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's strong standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:...

I point this out only as a prelude to issuing a mea culpa for my own error in drawing attention to its inane comments.

Object lesson: Ignore it it. It lies and it's stupid.

Nice, that you had the chance to query Harry. We'll see. At least you raised the issue. Kudos for that.

@the FDL Salon, HR was asked:

Why did you not honor Sen. Dodd’s hold on the SSCI version of the FISA bill?

His response:

In response to CTuttle @ 9

There is a general misunderstanding of holds in the Senate. Holds are temporary not permanent. Senator Dodd and I worked together on FISA. Senator Dodd and I voted together on FISA. Senator Dodd and I will continue to work together against immunity for the phone companies and for Bush and Cheney.

I consider HR's response to be something I'd expect from the likes of Sharter28% itself.

I believe Reid intended his (demonstrable mis)statement to be interpreted as he [Reid] is against immunity for the telcos and against immunity for Bush/Cheney.

If you haven't read a transcript of her Kansas State University speech, you ought to.

What a babe.

If you like music AT ALL, you need to familiarize yourself w/ www.pandora.com

They run the Music Genome Project, which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like.

My hint: Think of your very favorite song. Use that tune as a "seed" to create a radio station. You'll discover lots of music you weren't previously familiar with, but will enjoy thoroughly.

Lately I listen to (Miles) All Blues radio more and more, and more and more and more...

finetune looks interesting. I'll have to spend some time w/ it, tks.

For some reason your post reminds me of the time one of my close friends called me a "Christless, heathen, bastard". I took 2/3 of that as a compliment.

You seem like an intelligent person, but seriously.

"I have an actual education in actual law. You don't."

You come across as if you have an actual education in behaving like a pompous ass.

Have you been doing bongs non-stop since Wednesday? 8') Republican Superfriends?

There are too many darn words in Glenn's post. Seriously. For the same reasons Chomsky doesn't gain traction on television, this argument is unlikely to gain traction w/ most "voters".

Where is the Lakoffian individual who can translate so many of Glenn's (and others') arguments into bumper sticker sized sound-bites?

How do we get at the underlying reality of this love-affair with more and more War?

I missed your point.

"too many words" wasn't in any way a criticism of the argument or your presentation. It was my own (lame) verbal shorthand for the inherent difficulty of making the point in such a fashion that the "average joe" understands.

I agree w/ this 100%:

As he [Chomsky] has pointed out, when you have a message that is something other than conventional wisdom being said over and over, then it's impossible to express the message in a persuasive way using very few words. Those who espouse conventional wisdom need not offer evidence or articulate their premises, because it's all just assumed. Only those who challenge that wisdom are required to do so, which makes that message one that, by definition, can't be accommodated on television.

I would argue, though, that many of your arguments (illegality of FISA, media failure/complicity/laziness, unAmerican aspects of Unitary Executive theory, shallowness of Republican identity politics, etc.) are a bit less "radical" than Chomsky's. Yes, fully articulating the position can't be done in sound-bites. But "Torture is UnAmerican" can conceivably sway some as a sound-bite. "The U.S. is the largest exporter of State-sponsored Terrorism", not so much.

"We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values…."

It isn't Nationalism at all.

I'm about the furthest thing from a Nationalist. But as I said to a pro-War Bushie in the gin-up to the Iraq War -

I truly detest OUR current administration. That doesn't mean I want China to come in here and overthrow it. At that point, I'll be part of the resistance along w/ everybody else. What makes you think Iraq will be that much different?

But I used to have one of those magnetic "ribbons" on my car. It was Star-spangled red, white and blue. The text?

"Just pretend it's all O.K."

by guys like Di Rita, and Bowland?. It reminds me of clueless pols sitting down w/ Stephen Colbert for a "Better Know A District" segment. What the heck are these people thinking? They obviously don't know who they're dealing with...