An IMC is an Independent Media Center, more or less a group blog, except that we have a "Newswire" where readers can submit their own articles.

Generally, we don't get much evidence of "Establishment" (That's a 60s word, but it's still pretty useful and accurate) attention, but recently we heard of a dispute in our city concerning a local matter (Zoning or resource use, something like that) and EVERYBODY at the meeting was aware of the pieces that the IMC had written on that particular issue and they were all using those pieces as launching pads for criticism of what the establishment folks were saying.

In a way, we're kind of like pornographers. I just watched the movie "The Notorious Bettie Page" where this pinup queen became more and more popular during the 80s, but she herself was completely unaware of her own popularity until the 90s. People paid attention, but individually, not as a group.

Way back when, I picked up a book on Ninja techniques and strategies and sure, enough, they recommend doing exactly what Jonah suggests. When you're facing a group of people who seem determined to hurt you, lunge for the biggest guy there. If you win, they'll all be intimidated. If you lose, you probably would have lost anyway, but you avoid the fate of facing the biggest guy after being tired out by taking on the little guys first.

Apparently, Jonah agrees with this, but notice that in order to be consistent with the Ninja strategy, the US should have taken on Iran first. Iran has a much larger population, is politically cohesive, has a lengthy anti-American record and an intact army. Notice also that Ledeen makes the same error. Ledeen advises taking a "small, crappy little country," not the biggest guy in the room, but someone that's easy to pick on.

Sorry Jonah, you don't make the rank of honorary Ninja. You misunderstand their strategy.

is that, unlike in conventional warfare, the purpose of guerrilla warfare is NOT to simply kill as many "bad guys" as possible! If you simply run around killing as many "bad guys" as you physically can, and the methods US snipers were using in Hunt's piece were clearly even more indiscriminate than the methods described by Hunt as having been used in Vietnam, the "fence-sitters" in Iraq, the people who might be persuaded to throw in their lot with the US, have absolutely no reason to join the US cause.

Who in their right mind would join up with a mad killing machine that was determined to simply obliterate as many lives as possible?

I got the book on this a number of years back. Excellent volume and very eye-opening. It sits in my bookshelf and yes, I've opened it up to write Letters to the Editor with more than once.

Way back when, in the old days, I was a Republican and went with my (still) Republican father to a meeting of Republicans to decide upon candidates for county offices. I was very struck by the insistence of some members. The group was told that so-and-so was a good family man, that he had lived in the town so many years, etc. The insistent members wanted to know: "But what makes him Republican!?!?!"

Well, the Republicans went on to win many electoral victories over the next several election cycles.

Mulholland is the one who lacks the "big picture." The big picture is that Democrats who win support do so because they have distinguished themselves as Democrats!!!!

Friedman expresses President Nixon's old "madman theory" quite well. I did a paper on that theory during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (who also appeared to like the theory). Problem is, it's always worked better at frightening the American people than it ever has to even worry foreign leaders.

The good cop/bad cop theory has always worked better on frightened and confused citizens who are intimidated by being in a police station in the first place than it ever has on folks who have "been around the block."

Friedman is offering up a theory that has been thoroughly tested and found wanting.

Someone claimed David Broder was not too old to do his job, that Broder was as energetic as ever and was still able to put in the needed number of hours of effort each day.

Problem is, that evaluation completely misses the point that Greenwald brings up here, that commentators can get stuck in a time warp and can obsessively come back time and again to nonexistent problems.

A perfect example is Broder's conviction that there is a "controlling group" of moderate, centrist people who occupy the mid-section of American politics. One wins this group and one wins elections. Broder then went on to describe this moderate, sensible group in great detail.

Problem: There is no such group. There has not been any such group for at least a decade. Broder is stuck in a time warp.

We need "term limits" or "recertifications" for commentators.

Speaking as a former military guy (PN3, USN, 1991-2001), I can't describe Time's behavior as insubordination as magazines have not broken any written. legal rules to publish the words of sitting Congresspeople, but wow! ManOManOMan! Sure does feel to me like insubordination, though. Natcherly, we couldn't do anything to demonstrate our displeasure towards insubordinate sailors, but we sure as heck wanted to and we put lots and lots of energy into theatrics over it.