Glenn Greenwald, 2008:

Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims.

Scientific American, June 1958 (via June 2008 issue)

PASSIVE NATION--"Poll after poll among our youngsters has given statistical confirmation of the phenomenon of American life which David Riesman, in his book The Lonely Crowd, named 'other-direction'--extreme sensitivity to the opinions of others, with a concomitant conformity. As a nation we seem to have a syndrome characterized by atrophy of the will, hypertrophy of the ego and dystrophy of the intellectual musculature. This rather unpleasant portrait is an inescapable conclusion from the mass of data on the attitudes of the younger generation. More than half believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the local police should be allowed to use wiretapping at will, that the police should be permitted to use the 'third degree,' that people who refuse to testify against themselves should be forced to do so."

Our slide towards authoritarianism has old roots. The chickens have come home to roost.

[When] in the morning did he leave? How fast did he drive? Where do you get the 3 hour travel time from? Mapquest?

You do need a vacation if you aren't going to do the hard work. If you're going to do really good speculating you need all your energy.

Tiberius, my man, the burden of proof lies with the FBI, not with Glenn or even with Bruce Ivins. That is a fundamental tenet of our legal system. But of course, who has time to bother with the law, when you're too busy fitting the facts around your theory?

I agree with cannonfodder. One can never really know what these people are up to. They have made it their business to shape their own reality and sell it to the voters. Our only chance of knowing if this really went off script is if one of the jurors blows the whistle, since Congress is clearly not up to it.

That said, Allred's "What Geneva Convention?" does seem off-script.

[...] like it or not, McCain is out performing Obama. [...] Sending Lieberman and Lindsay, albeit two chuckleheads, is something. What's Obama doing?

You assume that we must do something, and have the right and/or the moral authority to do something. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes it's best to do nothing and wait to see how things shake out. After all, your "chuckleheads" may do more harm than good.

Second, your article almost seems like it's wrong to stand with Georgia and against Russia. This is perverse as the converse is to support Russia. I simply don't get the logic [...]

Since you brought up logic, let's examine yours. This is a classic false dilemma argument: present two sides (you're either for Georgia or for Russia) and then force us to pick one. Yet taking no sides is a perfectly valid option that you seek to exclude from discussion. I know the media has portrayed Georgia as this delicate, nascent, Western, liberal democratic flower that must be nurtured, but this is far from the case. Remember, this is the same media that anointed Boris Yeltsin as a true democrat and defender of Freedom, even as he shelled the Russian Parliament.

My big concern, and perhaps it should be yours too, is that this is showing Obama for the neophyte that he is on foreign policy.

Actually I find Obama's approach much wiser than McCain's. As jwr_12 has pointed out, this is a very delicate thing, and as Cole points out, we have no credibility, since we are as guilty as Russia when it comes to aggression and the rule of law.

Enough said.

Cutting out so soon? :)

If you're sincere in your interest in what is happening in the Caucasus might I recommend you do some further reading? Glenn Greenwald's interview with Professor Charles King (right here in Salon), and King's op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor (linked to by Greenwald), are great starting points. This man knows the Caucasus far far better than McCain and his lapdogs do. And for heaven's sake, quit watching Fox News!

One can argue all one wants that personal responsibility should be the rule, but that is futile. When dealing with large sets of people the "personal" part goes out of the window; large groups behave statistically in a manner that reflects innate human nature and preaching personal responsibility will not change this. (Abstinence-only program, anyone?)

Moreover, no matter how responsible we may be as individuals, few of us can be expected to fully understand the underlying technologies involved in this data gathering, and thus most of us are ill-equipped to determine when it is safe to divulge personal information (as one must, if one is conducting a commercial or financial transaction).

Finally, much personal data is legitimately given to authorities: courts, governments, etc. and the law needs to cover this too. The Veterans Administration, for example, recently leaked millions of records of private data belonging to veterans. I got one of their "uh, we're very sorry, but..." letters. They screwed up. Now I have to be on the lookout. Personal responsibility for my own security did not help me at all in that case.

We ought to recognize these problems, and act accordingly by passing a comprehensive privacy law that covers the data-gathering activities of not only private individuals and corporations, but also government agencies as well.