Ondelette,

Thanks for the tutorial. Lakoff I’m familiar with, Fauconnier not at all. The way you’ve stepped it out makes perfect sense to me. I don’t think you’re rambling – ‘course some might say, my sayin’ so is no endorsement.

This:

Hence Klein's constant recruiting of standard frames (Dems soft on security, partisanship ruining Washington,...) to write, whether or not they fit any facts. Up until someone like Glenn nails them, they are comfort food that sells magazines by convincing the reader that the reader is well informed since magically everything the reader has absorbed as true in the past turns out to be easily true in the present.

taken with Glenn’s last update, and shotgunfreude's insight, might be the truest, most dispiriting thing I’ve read all day. Then, I can only argue this fundamental betrayal ought to disqualify the press from the privilege it wants to claim.

Paul,

Okay, Hippies. Every time you’ve linked to the Merle Haggard piece, I’ve read it. Going on round 4, now, I think.

…A vague populist annoyance with big stores and big shots is one of the themes that have led Haggard to "change labels,"…, but Haggard has decided to support Hillary Clinton!? …"The thing that gets under my skin most about George W. is his intention to install fear in people,"… We're changing the Constitution out of fear…, but Klein rants on about the rights he firmly believes RESTORE affords to terrorists? There’s an inherent conflict there, isn’t there? And, is it Haggard’s conflict or Klein’s? Or, is that your point? The conflict doesn’t belong to Merle Haggard, the conflict is solely Klein’s?

Anyway. Thanks, guys. You’ve given me another way to look at it all. Having multiple lenses by which to evaluate what is, is helpful.

And, Bebop… I hear you. I respect. But, Grrrr.

...depressing state of affairs.

Thanks, Glenn - although a thank you is clearly inadequate - for the very *bright* light you've cast across these dark spaces.

All any of us can do is to continue to chip away at the wall between what *is* and what the shoddy reporters (such as Joe Klein) would have us believe, instead.

Ya done good, Glenn! Very well done.

I've found the Glenn/Klein/FISA discussion at:

BoomanTribune

CrooksandLiars

DailyKos

Atrios

FireDogLake

Digby

OpenLeft

TheDailyDish

TheNextHurrah

ThinkProgress

SirotaBlog

WhoisIoz

Balkinization

HuffingtonPost

Wonder where else this story has cropped up? That's a rhetorical question. But, it's also a lot of different audiences. Again, good work, Glenn.

r€nato and stuart_zechman, I can just about decipher what you're doing...

I have to admit my knowledge is limited, but this:

Return _IsWrongOnFacts

just cracked me up!

from: BoingBoing

Amazon fights Fed's request for names of book buyers

Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, November 27, 2007 4:01 PM

Link at the sig

As you note Saletan's bit on IQ ricocheted around the blog world in many of the same ways Glenn's evisceration of Klein has. But there is a notable difference, I think. Slate's readership is principally online, is it not? Or, at least, I am unaware of a print version of Slate. Slate and William Saletan ought to surmise, and be very concerned, that their readership has, at the click of a mouse, instantly the full array of counter-arguments. They'd better correct! Saletan was equally eviscerated on that topic by an array of betters. He really had no choice but to "fix it," and fast.

A depressing bit of social science research that bears on smears which, ultimately, are corrected. Bottom line, when the 'felonious' accusation is made, people's impression of the one accused falls. When the record is corrected and the smear revealed for what it is, people will correct their view, but that view never recovers to its pre-smear level. In other words, a smear (even if debunked) has an enduring negative effect. And, that enduring effect is even more pronounced in the people who were inclined to believe the smear in the first place. For our purposes here; eg, Democrats accused of being weak on national security, particularly, as perceived by self-identified Republicans. Matt Yglesias has the link (at my sig).

To be competitive in the smear wars, it seems, it's actually necessary to fight fire with fire... Of course, that presents an array of problems for progressives, but it does clarify why it always seems like such an uphill battle.

Just like the Berlin Wall. Hammer, hammer, hammer, chip chip chip... Bang head on keyboard.

Time's efforts to correct their error, while simultaneously trying to hide their error, does lead then into some unintelligible territory. Your territory, Glenn, maybe unclaimed. Time's, on the other hand, is becoming simply unintelligible.

Time Tries Again

Don't apologize to me. I'm sitting on the sidelines soaking up the information. As you, and Arne, and Jay, et al bounce this technical stuff back and forth between you, I get a much clearer picture of what's at stake... even if I don't know the acronyms, I write 'em down and look 'em up when you all take a breath.

...[T]he Bush Administration’s FISA apologists work feverishly to exploit the intellectually lazy....[but] if he’ll just give us another work of the quality of Primary Colors, I’ll forgive him entirely.

Given Joe's age, and apparent descent into intellectual laziness, I very much doubt he's got another Primary Colors in him. Guess, Scott won't be able to forgive him. Loved the title on Scott's post: Salon 1, TIME 0.

Excellent work, Glenn. Just, excellent.