Please, folks (and sorry if it's been said before). Twenty odd years ago, I joined the College Republicans (yes, because of a girl), and quit after the first meeting because they read from their charter, which indicated that the purpose of the group was to support the platform of the national party. Period.

I then decided to look at the College Democrats, and found the same concept in their charter.

It's all about the party; not the Republic, or Democracy (or hell, about Liberty, just as I'm sure it's not about Labour across the pond).

So basically (Update II), if you are planning on breaking eggs, you'd better expect omelettes, and if you claimed you expected to be able to break eggs and get them hardboiled, you should have cooked them first.

"But the fact remains, America is not as racist as you wish it was (after all, it makes for better "writing")."

Hmm, not in my experience. It just hides. I have in laws who still watch basketball games and talk about the "jungle monkeys" without any self-consciousness (and these are late gen-Xers). (And on an ironic note, at the funeral for the in-laws' father, who was the most racist of the bunch, the soldiers who paid their respect to his service were black.)

On the other hand, my niece talked to my sister about her best friend in school for six months before she brought her home, which was when my sister found out she was black. No previous hint, inference, or statement as to her race.

So there's hope, but we're not there yet.

Why do I, every time hope seems to crack the horizon, picture Kilroy peeking up to see if it is safe?

Are our standards higher because we don't have Page 3 girls here?

Random statements:

What does it say when, generally, the best politically informed citizens watch the Daily Show (in reruns for two months) instead of the MSM?

Who listens to the pundits when they're too busy listening to themselves?

Just asking.

If it is this bad now, what will happen with Murdoch at the helm?

The words "due process of law" say it all.

It is a process, run by the government, to secure your rights.

The neoconservatives believe that government doesn't work efficiently, and then go to prove that it is the case.

Why should the safeguarding of our rights be any different for them?

I recall that wisdom is characterized in knowing that you don't know everything; thus, the classic definition of a liberal is one who seeks to understand a subject before making a decision.

The classic conservative seeks to maintain the status quo; they don't need to understand anything beyond that; so the highlighted bloggers already know everything they want to know--apparently they learned everything they needed to know by middle school.

Who did the risk management assessment to determine whether the benefit of taking part in the activity outweighed the risk of it (I thought the reconsolidation of MaBell went a little smoothly). Or, ask Qwest if the risk of not performing the activity outweighed the risk of performing it.

thomas c...

Because obviously, it does not apply to them. No one would ever mistake them as a terrorist who would die for their cause. They're too busy golfing.

Now sending others off to die...that's ok. Killing hundreds and thousands of innocents to make a political point...that's ok. Trashing the reputation of the country they come from...that's ok. Dying's for other people.

I've seen this pointed out by some commenters @ Balkin, but there are existing points in the FISA changes that absolve 3rd parties from liability so long as they get a certification from the government that the tapping is lawfully authorized.

Now Quest may have backed off because they didn't get the cert, and the administration can give such certs to protect all of their favorite telcos--but then their petards would be in the hoist, wouldn't they?

"Do you want to certify it?"

"I don't want to certify it."

"I know, we'll ask Congress!"

"They won't certify it; they hate warrentless wiretapping."

"Hey, they liked it! Hey Congress, you certified it!"*

(*Apologies to LIFE cereal commercials)

Meanwhile back at the ranch, no one has to put their life at risk in order to voice an opinion. Call someone a "chickenhawk" all you like, but be prepared to be called a "traitor" willing to abandon the Iraqi people to real war, in return. Don't like it? Too bad. Free speech is not a one way street.

Actually, while "chickenhawk" is an insult, i.e., a person advocating war while being too afraid to fight in it, "traitor" has legal connotations. (And how can an American citizen be a traitor to Iraq?) A more proper equivalent to "chickenhawk" would be "peacenik" while the response to "traitor" would be "war criminal". Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

So, under our new equivalency doctrine: shooter242, how do you like being a war criminal?