I don't know when Obama began wearing the flag pin. As I'm sure you know his not wearing one caused a big ruckus where he felt compelled to state why he wasn’t wearing one, only for him to later succumb to the pressure from the beltway to wear it. As you say, the wearing of the pin is meaningless and no, we shouldn't care about it, per se. But it is simply another example of Obama caving in to and following the beltway pressures, some insipid (lapel pin) and some dangerous (FISA vote).

"...and if someone like Jane Harman is already signaling her opposition.... The fact that Congress has spent the last eight years being complicit, meek, compliant and impotent is no reason to assume they will continue to be. Congress has a history of being much more assertive with Democratic Presidents...."

I can't help but by cynical when I read this. What is Harman up to? Why the reverse in positions -- enabling Bush, tough on Obama? Something's amiss.

I hope you're correct that Congress is historically more assertive with demo presidents, but I don't know why that would be true. Too bad Congress just can't do its job regardless.

"It is my hope that Pelosi will be visited by an angel and change all of her ways and come out, Joan of Arc style, as an avenger for the middle class and a missionary for restoration of the rule of law. And that Reid and all the other twofers in the Senate will follow her in obeisance."

LOL! Priceless!

Maybe not voting would be better than voting for Vidal's idea of the "money candidate", and his idea is spot-on correct. If we all decided to make a change, change would happen. And I don't mean Obama "change".

I doubt I'll ever vote for a mainstream candidate again.

"How effective an independent investigative Commission like this will be will depend on the details of its structure -- its subpoena powers, punishments for defiance, and the independence of its members."

Very true.

But with any truth commission on any topic, the money given to that commission is very important and telling. The 9/11 commission was given very little funds compared to what was given to investigate the Challenger, and 20+ years had passed.

Funding is also important.

Is it true that the main problem with claiming "state secrets" is that Obama/Bush are not merely wanting specific documents and information withheld to protect "state secrets", but they are having entire cases suspeneded? And that in the past only certain information was withheld, but the case continued?

Thanks for any clarification. I know has Glenn written about this many, many times.... Sorry for my lapse in understanding.

Is there anything written as to why Portugal chose to decriminalize instead of legalize?

Glenn's definition of leadership is exactly correct and I don't think I've read that anywhere else! But leaders in our culture need more than bravery, they need "personality".

Kucinich and Paul both are great at speaking out (Paul would completely agree with Webb on this issue and often talks on the floor about ending the FED, changing our foreign policy and other unheard of ideas), but both are constantly maligned or not at all mentioned in our press.

Is it because they look funny? Do they not speak that well? Are they too emotional? I honestly can't figure it out. I haven't seen Webb speak, but I suspect he has more of what ever it takes to be listened to. At least I hope so.

the Federal Reserve?

Isn't it the Feds' leaders that really run the US? You should have mentioned the biggest and sleaziest "bank" we've got. It's the Fed that's in control and ultimately responsible for the mess we're in.

Talk about the peasants not wanting to complain about their lords!

I have no doubt that if some right wing nut job read your column today he/she would agree wholeheartedly with everything you write.

Missing the searing sarcasm, of course.

Well done, again.

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows anyone to suspend it -- to suspend any part of the Constitution for any reason.

I believe it a fantasy of some government entities or government positions (president, VP, etc.) -- that under certain circumstances they may claim it legal to suspend the Constitution, but I've never read it anywhere in the Constitution itself.

What people need to realize is these corporate giants use the power of the State to keep competition away via regulations, laws, tariffs, subsidies, etc. It's all about their profits, but they couldn't do it without the help of the State, because the State is the only group that can 'legally' force sheeple to do things.

-- humanaction

Well said, and Che Pasa (sp), too!

Glenn has mentioned but not focused on the State/Government as being a cause of this nonsense. I focus on that because I think it's the source of the problem, and has been for decades. But at least he mentions it.

And the ridicule one gets/hears/reads in believing that some "conspiracy theories" make sense even when the evidence is mounting in its favor, is ridiculously laughable. Some people would think it a "conspiracy theory" to even mention the idea of corporate sponsorship being a problem in media. When YOU believe in something out of the mainstream, it's not a "conspiracy theory" -- it's only that when OTHER wingunts believe in something out of the mainstream.

-Sigh-

I thank you very much for all your work in the area of civil liberties. Your use of "sadism" in your earlier post was a bit shocking to me because I don't think I've read that word in this context from you before, or from anyone else. It is completely accurate.

But I had to laugh at your last quote from Rush -- he's an incoherent moron!

"As stomach-turning as these individual acts of sadism are...."