Let's see, general communication surveillance by the Executive without review by one of the other two branches of a democratic state - that means any communication of journalists and pundits will be monitored. That is, Mackey and his friends/competitors will not ever have any anonymous sources, since the executive branch will know who they talked with and about what.

It follows that 'anonymous sources' is just a hollow phrase used in articles to, I guess, fill space. Obviously nobody is protected from possible governmental persecution, hence anybody talking to a journalist shouldn't - at least if [s]he has anything meaningful to say.

Doesn't is look a lot like Mackey believes 'e-mail correspondence of Americans' includes everybody's electronic post not his or another journalist's? Well, he probably also includes government officials, especially in high places less they be open to scrutiny.

Am I rightly assuming US insurance companies are profit-driven, liable first and foremost to their shareholders? Am I also right in assuming, insurance companies will not take up people already ill in some [any?] way, that is, people with 'pre-existing conditions'? What about cancelling insurance contracts when someone's illness gets too expensive?

I wonder if private companies are not deciding on who will get what treatment.

Now, what does the Earth look like considering the Principle of Balanced and Bi-partisan?

One side says, the Earth is roughly a sphere, slightly flattened at the poles, the other side claims Dog created a flat earth, a slivery disc. Clearly, under the Principle touted nowadays, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, the Earth is neither three-dimensionally round nor a two-dimensional plate ...

Sounds like nonsense? Well, while I cannot come up with a sensible 2 1/2-dimensional geometry to make this work, some self-proclaimed journalists [and a lot of other idiots] are obviously living in this strange world. A world in which the truth lies always in the middle unless Glenn Beck says otherwise, a world in which nations are independent and sovereign unless John Bolton talks diplomatic, a world in which evolution as such is debatable, religion scientific, and Sarah Palin a serious politician with a vision and stamina.

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

Magna Carta, 1215 [a later translation into English was used for this quotation; one minor spelling correction has been applied]

True, the colonies decided to depart from the Motherland in 1776. And clearly only now did they finalise the step by throwing out any decency and all the rights once granted by a king.

The Manchurian Candidate [new version] isn't a mediocre thriller, it is a documentary. Just reminding you.

I am quite sure only a very tiny majority of anti-choice thumpers are really against abortion. It is just an issue making for some nice and easy Good vs. Evil polemics.

Consider this, Terry or O'Reilly are offered the chance to go back in time when the mothers of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden [true, this one is muddy since he once was a valuable ally] were pregnant after the 9th week. With the knowledge of what the children would become wouldn't T. and O'R. do anything possible to kill of the bastards in their wombs?

Some of these hypocrites would root for abortion in the case of much, much less harmful folks, even go so far as to visit mothers of their political opponents if they could [I refrain from names].

This is not even a matter of cognitive dissonance, it's a simple matter of Quod licet Iovi - it's sin if you do it but virtuous if I do it.

Considering that show trials, government knows best, and indefinite imprisonment without due process* are defining features of Socialist governments - USSR, Yugoslavia under Tito, Maoist China -, do we now have to agree with the GOP about Obama being a Socialist turning the USA into the USSA?

*Could be argued 'due process' means 'government knows best' in totalitarian countries.

Let's not forget that the only US President taking peace serious is the one Americans spot out to be 'the worst' ever. Must be because he did not go nor extend a war [talking about real wars here, not the metaphoric Cold War]. To the contrary, he was the guy bringing Egypt and Israel together to form the first actual peace treaty in the Mid-East with Israel involved.

A peace, BTW, which still holds despite some rhetoric of politicians on both sides.

If ever someone creates a computer simulation based upon the US Presidency, Empire of War seems to be a good title.*

*Since we are still in b/w litigation times, let me add that I differentiate between the country/nation US, the citizens of the US, and the politicians of the US.

Glenn, is it naivete or just rhetoric when you believe the claims about anonymous sources? Why do you think there are any? IME 'anonymous sources' are much more often figments of the imagination, a cop-out for lazy researchers and writers to pretend intellectual honesty and hard work.

Rosen doesn't like Sotomayor, simple as that. He then reads a few sentences of legalese, which he is clearly unable to wrap his mind around, then slams her for being seen as the lazy dimwit he is [I think psychologists call that 'projection', at least in chep B-movies]. When he happens upon more intelligent readers of his piece he can always point to 'anonymous sources'. It's them, not him.

He's lazy, just intelligent enough to hit [mostly] the right keys on his keyboard to come up with a comprehensible text, lying and a coward hiding behind a paper wall.