You ask:

are you saying that reducing our civil liberties through increased governmental and police powers is not usually defended by conservatives with the bumper-sticker reasoning of "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide"?

That any conservative would say that confuses the hell out of me. When I encounter it, I ask 'em: "What happened? Why did you change your tune after clinton left office?" They then say: "9/11, 9/11, 9/11". If we're still talking, I remind them about terrorism before then. I've actually had quite a few grudging converts.

Now, please consider the following to be historical, not clinton bashing.

Back before 9/11, many believed that greatest terror threat facing the US was domestic. Recall that we had various bombings and armed standoffs all "made in america". We were also being told to fear drug addicts (war on drugs) and pedophiles. At that time, the clinton administration was trying to obtain sneak and peek powers by inserting the legislation in various bills.

Examples from 2000:

HR 833 sec. 1791

HR 2987, sec 6

S 486 sec 301

These provisions amend 18 USC 3103.

I learned about this stuff from eff.org, slashdot, and salon. Hint - google "site:salon.com CESA"

So, you see that the desire for secret searches crosses administrations and party lines. Blame conservatives, but blame liberals too.

filthyHarry and athenian, thanks so very much for telling me what my point of view is. Repeat it loudly and insistently enough and it may become the truth.

What you fail to understand is that bush and crew are a bunch of reactionary fundamentalists who are trying to force huge changes in our system of government. Is that conservative? NO! In reality, we are people who grudgingly accept change and try not to spend money. Does that sound like people who like the way the administration wastes money and soldiers on a stupid self serving war?

Another important conservative value is small government that only interferes with the people and the economy when absolutely required. Do you think we support domestic spying and the loss of habeas corpus?

On the other hand, do you think we could ever join hands with you? You won't accept us as anti war and anti bush without also insisting that we drink all the liberal koolaid. You are the most censorious, judgmental, and exclusionary bunch around.

Keep erecting your barriers. Then wonder why over 60% of the country is against the administration while the democratic candidates still lose polls to republican ones.

Better yet, register republican and help us kick out the jesus freaks and neocons. You will be surprised to discover that a lot of your values are shared. That is if you value civil rights, the environment, and balance between the branches of government. But wait! your pedantic little brains will surely reject the notion that conservatives and even republicans might share so many of your values.

It is a fine line. Let's check out some of the possible questions/testimony:

To the woman: "Did he rape you?"

To the man: "Did you rape her?"

These questions ask for opinions regarding a question of fact and the fact is central to the case.

Objection (before the answer)- conclussory, the jury makes decisions of fact and typically only experts are considered competent to give an opinion.

To the man "Did you rape her at your place"

Objections: conclussory and indefinite. Rape is a question of fact, as discussed above. Indefinite because there are two questions hidden in there. "Rape?" and "Your place?"

So, the judge is going to require the jury to determine the legal elements of rape such as sexual contact, consent, ability to consent, actual knowledge of disability, constructive knowledge of disability, ... The rape question is then determined by applying the legal elements.

So, can a rape case be decided this way? Certainly. Does the judges decision bar some of the more emotionally charged testimony/questions? absolutely. Does it weaken the prosecution's case? Maybe. The elements would have to be proven anyway.

Did the judge cross the line? I think so. Everything I've mentioned could be handled by a dilligent defense attny objecting to questions and answers. What is lost is that the prosecution can not make the complete accusation, nor the defense rebut it, during the opening and closing arguments. The charge should be mentionable during those two phases of the trial.

I wonder if those guys have jumped mccain's ship in time to catch another ride. Anyone know whose campaign they're moving to?

mccain decided to try increasing his republican cred by carrying water for bush. Little did he know, but that very act cost him a lot of conservative cred. The republicans currently breaking away from bush is welcome, but too long in coming. It is an expression of a long standing schism, inside the GOP, between fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and neocons. The three groups are surprisingly distinct and joined only because liberals repulse them all equally.

Sometimes I wonder if that repulsion is the reason the breaks didn't happen earlier. Note: just as liberal does not equate with democrat, nor does conservative equate with republican.

Joan writes: "... and more Republicans show some courage and integrity ..."

Umm, how's about some courage and integrity from the dems too?

Thanks very much. Is this kinda what you are saying?

In all cases, assume 60 units good stuff @ $70/unit and 80 billion units OK stuff @ 60/unit.

Case 1: refinery capacity = 100 units.

bought 60 good for 4200 + 40 OK for $60 = 100 units for 6600

result $66/unit

Case 2: refinery capacity = 90 units.

bought 60 good for 4200 + 30 OK for $60 = 90 units for 6000

result $66.67/unit

Go ahead, use your splitter. Energy comes from jack, gets split, some goes here, some goes there. Just don't split too many times. The more times you split, the more power the little seat jack tries to deliver. Too much and it'll heat up and maybe break (or catch fire if you're unlucky).

Also, don't even pretend you're being green or scavenging energy. Your taking advantage of a power source that the aircraft is supplying to your seat. It's clever, but not environmentally nice in any way.