The rules of proof, Tony, require that for it to be credible, you must provide me with the means of looking up your information for myself. Brook did that by posting a link. You give me and your fellow bloggers no way to confirm what you have seen on tv. It's ancedotal. In other words, all you've said is, "Believe me, you guys, there's never been a story on this." By what objective yardstick would you have someone find this acceptable proof? All we could do is comb thru the C-Span archives, and you have quite a nerve if you expect us to do your research for you. We don't even have a way to quantify what your "alot of the time" watching amounts to. Presumably you don't sit in front of the tv with a chamber pot at your feet and someone schlepping your meals to you on a tray, so we know at the very least you might have missed something. The question of whether no tv coverage of protest quashing proves that no protest quashing has taken place will have to remain outside the scope of my discussion until you can at least figure out that until you offer credible, verifiable data to back up your point of view, it remains nothing more than just that. Which, by the way, seems to be what you're trying to accuse the rest of us of doing with statements like, "...the rhetoric in this blog...bears little or no resemblance to reality. "

And on a personal note, I refuse to have a dictionary quoted to me by anyone who cannot figure out how to properly use IT'S and ITS. Shooting fish in a barrel, indeed.