Interesting the noise around this one. The site isn't called "Stuff Only White People Like" or "Stuff All White People Like" nor is it called "Stuff You Like If You'd Like To Be White" so it's hard to honestly see a racist angle in it. You could just as well set up your own "Stuff (insert your chosen group here) People Like" and it could be quite interesting to see the consumerist cross-linkages and differences. Anti-consumerist? Well, mildly sorta. But racist? nah... Seems that subject's so hot we get intellectual short-circuits over it - which is interesting in itself.

Glenn: thanks for all your work on this. I try to keep up with the voluminous discussion but I know I miss things so forgive me if my question is a repetition: If three judges have declared the spying illegal, is there any chance this law would be declared unconstitutional?

And a point here: What I find so disturbing even beyond this congressional crime is what it portends for the future. Since neither of these candidates seems to see a problem with abrogating the constitution even before they're even elected, what can we expect from them after they have their filthy bloody little hands on power? And if we have another "terrorist" (or whatever they choose to call it) attack? Whoops! - there goes the rest of the Bill of Rights and, I fear, effectively the Constitution with it and with the country's (or at the very least the MSM's) wholehearted (and full throated) support. That's the scenario that scares me the most.

Nevermind that the Constitution is being gutted by the Serious Candidates and their cronies. What's really important is to cast every other political alternative as as zany, colorful, odd, amusingly self-serving characters. Now that's what I challenging the MSM. Yessiree Salon editors and writers, you sure know how to throw down the ol' gauntlet.

Okay, all you brand new well-organized netroots organizations. Go to it. Make the most of that imagined "partnership" with a candidate who destroys your rights. And with constant government surveillance thanks to the swell new FISA law that he just hates so much, President Obama will have transcripts of all your communications so he'll know just whom to target when (or perhaps rather "if") the political heat gets uncomfortable. That'll show him who's boss!

It's only a partnership if both parties agree to it, and if it's not based on agreement then it's based on mutual need. What I'm seeing from Obama towards all this is a big fat "F U", which, in my limited experience, tends to indicate a lack of perceived need and tends to be problematic towards continuing partnerships, as in "What partnership, you terrorist"? And then what will you do?

Nah, it's best to vote for Obama. Stay away from those strange, zany, "fringe" parties with their colorful candidates and all their flapdoodle about respecting the Constitution. They're obviously just a bunch of crybabies.

Your point is well taken Alex, but when a candidate gratuitously helps gut the constitution (for no known constituency) I think we already have a pretty good idea what to expect.

Bush has not folded. Cole's whole argument is posited on the notion that the dictator and his cronies care about world opinion and the consequences of their actions. There is no real evidence of this. Indeed, we can find numerous examples of precisely the opposite (see: the last seven years). Yes, Burns was there in Geneva but w/orders to do nothing, say nothing, offer nothing. Which is what he did. Hardly the diplomatic push.

These people are ideological thugs, driven by nothing so much as the will to power. This has been the single clear purpose to all the criminality of the past years. Power above all else. Including above profits and people as well. There is no reason to believe a bit of pre-war window dressing (remember the Iraq invasion run-up and Bush's "diplomacy" and all the talk about the "realists" at that time?) will change the approach. Bush does not change course. I'll believe Bush won't attack Iran when 1/21/09 comes and Iran is still in one piece.

Then we have the next war-monger waiting in the wings, but that's another story.

hmm... working out some issues here are we Anandasubramanian? Good luck with that. Try blaming others a little less for your bitterness and things might go better for you. Just a thought in advance of your no doubt snarky response.

As we slip further into ignorance, we slip further into savagery. That's what we get for all those tax dollars spent on important stuff like bombers, tanks and missiles instead of wasting them on foolishness like art, literature and music. But these were the choices we made - in nature there is no right or wrong, there are only consequences. Which we now begin to see.

There is NO WAY that the billions and billions of dollars of debt from Bush's various war adventures could have ANYTHING to do with this financial catastrophe. It just isn't related, so don't mention it. Don't even think about it. I mean it! Stop it right now.

Dream on about the Dem's brother. Them and $700 billion will get you a Wall Street bailout. Don't look fer nuthin' else from 'em.

could someone with access ask her about this? Maybe even press her on it a bit? I would love to hear her try and spin out one of her rambling, dissembling answers to avoid that question. There's so little to look forward to in this dreadful election, it'd be nice to have a bit of fun. Not that that will actually happen... So, just a thought; another one of my hopeless voter's fantasies I suppose.