• Sadly, we should be arguing about the breathtaking scope of legal FISA warrants, and here we are talking about illegal ones. As if retroactive warrants (legal under FISA) aren't bad enough.
_____________________________________

I agree. I called it "Civil Liberties Creep" this past February, when Leon Panetta claimed that CIA policy permitting "extraordinary renditions" had been abolished:

Panetta is referring to extraordinary renditions, not the good old ordinary renditions everyone but LondonLad and I find necessary to keep in the US intelligence community's tool kit.

It reminds me of the FISA debacle. Ever since the abominable Extra-Special Immunity-Enhanced Obama-Supported FISA legislation passed, no one seems bothered by the fact that in the first place, the good old FISA Court Classic was pretty much a secret Star Chamber to rubber-stamp requests for wiretapping and other clandestine actions.

I guess after the goalposts have been moved enough miles down the road, moving them back to the vicinity of the stadium is as much as one can expect and demand.
_____________________________________

• Something tells me after reading your post, he's going to want to spend more time with his family.
_____________________________________

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Even if it has a family, and even conceding the assumption that said family would want to spend more time with it, it's never gonna happen.

"Dead wrong" doesn't affect trolls the way it might a rational, moral being; it usually inspires them to try harder.

I bitch so much about comments nannies and commissars that I went back and forth about doing it myself.

For some reason, your question took me back to a high school New Year's Eve party hosted by two lovely sisters at their parents' McMansion; said parents were elsewhere.

They had a lovely new off-white living room carpet, until some poor fool-- not me-- abruptly puked up about a half-gallon of cheap red wine right in the middle of it.

Perhaps some deep-seated guilt leads me to try to pre-empt that sort of catastrophe. ;)

I'm probably paying too much attention to my Inner Glenn, but I'd like to spray-paint a neon line right here to denote the impact point when comments threads are in danger of a massive fail:

stevemaher12 - Tuesday, September 8, 2009 02:32 PM

Of course, comments threads may lean severely askew, then miraculously straighten themselves out.

But here's stevemaher12, who's talked to "a lot of" physicists or materials scientists who "laugh at some of the 'physics' that you truthers throw around".

He adds helpful caveats, e.g. "Remember: your 'sense' of how nature works is not a limitation it actually observes" to further demonstrate his superior rationality and command of logic. I haven't a clue what it means either.

This is what 9/11 Falsies do-- whether trotting or galloping in on a charger named Sweet Reason, they dip into the Sphere of Deviance and create a collage of "9/11 Truth(ers)" composed of the most inane, preposterous, and fantastic alternatives to the Official Story. "9/11 Truthiness" is a monolith-- a really stupid or deranged monolith.

Waving this selective grab-bag of craziness, and armed with Occam's Razor and the Spear of Derision, the Falsie proceeds to attack by engaging the Truther with mild remonstrances coupled with patronizing generalities.

The Falsie isn't one to chase moonbeams; the Falsie knows Science. Or Wants to Learn.

If the Truther, who has most likely done a lot of research, takes the bait, the thread is doomed.

Unlike resident Falsies, who would cheerfully censor even tangential references to "9/11 Truth", visiting Falsies are-- intentionally or not-- trolls.

Because if things go as they normally do, while I'm writing this, informed Truthers are rebutting stevemaher12's shaky presumptions. But this doesn't allow the topic to "resolve of its own accord", any more than engaging Ziocon trolls does.

And if it gets any momentum whatsoever, the Falsie Nannies will surely object, and the mêlée escalates.

My own "Truther" Internet surfing is surprisingly limited, a fact which I'm beginning to rectify. So I can't recommend a place. But if Truthers and Falsies are determined to have this kind of dialogue, it's at this point that one or the other should say, "OK, meet me at [9/11 forum]" and continue the discussion there.

♫ Oh, it's a crime for man to go philanderin'

And fill his wife's poor heart with grief and doubt.
Oh, it's a crime for man to go philanderin'...but!

With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck,
You can see the bloodhound don't find out!

With a little bit...with a little bit...
With a little bit of luck she won't find out!
With a little bit...with a little bit...
With a little bit of bloomin' luck!♬

· Lerner & Lowe, "A Little Bit of Luck"
______________________________________

After Sanford's little bit of luck ran out, he tried to capitalize on the brief groundswell of sympathy generated by his emotional confession.

Even corporate media types, who still promote the myth that reporters are ice-veined and hard-bitten, got a little bit misty when Sanford came in from the warm. And, applying its usual horse-race template, the question was whether Sanford could truly recover from an apparent career-breaking stumble and beat the odds. So there was a bit of a rooting interest for a while.

But Sanford's appealing contrition was fairly quickly replaced by irritated arrogance that neither Elected Misrepresentatives nor the public were ready to fast-track forgiving and forgetting in accordance with his wishes.

I read somewhere that in SC, it's an open secret that his extramarital relationship continues. Which is fine by me; I'm a romantic myself.

If true, Sanford seems to be daring his opponents to make him go away, and they're taking it up on it.

Sanford must have bigger bits of luck stashed away somewhere, and he's gonna need 'em.