Yeah, Glenn had no sooner begun his opening statement than hordes of us found the stream going dark. So I missed a good 20 minutes. By the time I got back, and based only on what I saw of the QandA, I'd say Glenn's premier moment was his admonition to Allen and Carney that when the government is arguing that 2+2 = 5 (the 2+2 analogy was originated by Allen during some vapid statement), it is up to journalists to insist that no, the govt is lying, and in fact 2+2 = 4. That got some wild applause.

Can we please, just for one, friggin', god-d*** day, stop trying to pull this entire thing here into your turdish, self-obsessive, and completely non-germane to the topic pro- and anti-libertarian debate???

Thank you, and let me second that. The vitriol spewed by certain anti-libertarian obsessives -- and some of their "fact" claims -- are easily countered, but I would like it noted that I've been behaving myself. And, I will continue to substantively ignore the compulsive, never-ending baiting. It, and the endless arguments that have in the past constantly then ensued, do no credit to the comments section here.

As ever, my respectful (for the blog) silence out not be deemed acquiescence to any of the obsessives' spewings. They ought to STOP.

I am indeed licensed to practice in Maryland (not Pennsylvania), but my practice is entirely federal. As any lawyer can relate, I do get constant requests for legal assistance from friends and family, and I turn down nearly all of them because it's rarely ever a good idea, for multiple reasons.

And many lawyers know what it is to be cornered at the most inappropriate times and places for free advice. Some years ago I was at a Xmas Party, and a dentist I knew who was also in attendance wanted my advice on some issue he had with his realtor. I'd had a few, and I separated my lips and pointed a finger at a back molar, and garbledly said: "Kud ew 'ook at 'is peez?"

I've even gotten email from people I only know online requesting legal advice, and when I try to explain that I'm not licensed in their state and do not know its laws, they seem to think that's some minor issue and that I'm blowing them off. (Many lawyers who express legal opinions at their web sites post big disclaimers that they do not intend any particular individual to take their musings as legal advice, and that they should consult a lawyer in their own state, including on any topic the lawyer blogger addresses. The potential liability reasons for this are obvious.)

Be-bop-o: I had owned but lost that wonderful book. Read it repeatedly. It is one of the best ever.

Since I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, when I voted a straight Dem ticket in the midterms -- first time ever for that -- I didn't expect to get perfect derailment of the GOP/Bush machine. Most politicians are not principled a la Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. (And I have some disagreements with all three of those, but would vote for any of them precisely because they are principled and right on the most important issues.)

That said, I do not believe Jim Webb is unprincipled or stupid. I want to hear his explanation, and I am also keeping in mind that this FISA legislation apparently expires in 6 mos at which time it will be revisited.

If the Democrats don't do anything to: (a) get us out of Iraq, (b) keep us out of Iran, and (c) undertake myriad and serious investigations of Executive wrongdoing, then I guess I may not vote in '08. But I'm not going to start totally screaming at them based on this FISA vote. At least not yet.

If it really turns out that both major parties are hopeless, then the only alternative I can see is some coalition building among people who may disagree about some matters, but who agree on the most serious issues of the day. Issues advocacy like abolitionism as someone else suggested then may be the only route to go. But I'm not ready to conclude that.

(And it seems to me that if I were attending YearlyKos and that Fab 4 suddenly canceled, that would tend to generate some hyper-anger that may be trumping some cool-headed reasoning.)

And can we please be spared the condescending assurances about how great it is that the law has a six-month sunset provision, since -- in 6 months -- it will be exactly the same Democrats voting on whether to renew these powers and they will be intimidated by exactly the same threats that if they do not renew it and give the President all of the powers he wants, the Terrorists will kill us and it will be all the fault of the Democrats for disobeying President Bush.

But 6 mos. gives time to really comprehend the legislation, and for opponents to sufficiently scrutinize and lobby against it, if necessary. There really is a terrorists threat, after all, and if the FISA court has ruled that the NSA may not do something that it is perhaps sensible to let it do under the current version, EVEN THO it is the Bush Administration making the case, it could be true that FISA needs some tweaking. I don't know how awful or not these amendments are yet, but if they are so horrific, then let's make that case over the next 6 mos.