Thanks for the links. I was travelling for the past 10 days and was unable to do much checking in, so I'm a bit behind the curve right now and still catching up. But I assume that by major differences you mean the BDs and DLCers on the one hand, and BA on the other, right?

In any case, I don't know to what extent the former have repeatedly capitulated out of (mis)perceived political necessity (i.e. caution), outright cowardice and/or cynical self-interest. It's probably some of each, as always, both individually and collectively.

But clearly, whatever their various motivations, it has not been for the party's or country's best interests, but rather their's and their corporate masters', and we need to deal with them one way or another, by getting them to change, replacing them with real Dems with more courage and principle, or rendering them irrelevant by surrounding them with such Dems.

I'm long past being angry with these "Dems", and at this point am focused far more on finding ways of fixing what's wrong with the party and eventually country than on mere venting.

GG routinely (& correctly) skewers Hiatt & other "serious journalists" who have supported to Iraq war, warrantless domestic wiretaps, & other arguably criminal behavior of W's administration. That some Dems caved to W & his Republican enablers on a 6 month amendment of FISA, doesn't warrant parrotting Hiatt's smear of the Dems.

W holds the power of the presidency for 482 more days. Hiatt & other W enablers or supporters can only hope that those opposing W's policies misdirect their frustration & anger.

GG 07/15/07: "Thanks to a rotted and pathologically pro-Bush press corps led by Fred Hiatt, this is the "abomination" -- the sweeping veil of secrecy -- that, more that anything else, now shapes and determines the type of government we have."

GG 03/23/07: "Note also the hallmark of the Fred Hiatt/Beltway Media mind: namely, unbridled scorn for the views of the lowly Americans masses. Relying upon the method perfected by Rush Limbaugh, Hiatt complains that 'House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of'...

...again I will apologize for taking your words incorrectly LWM. I cannot say more than that. The question was insightful in the context of today's discussion...

As for the "...professor" and "...kiddie porn...", and the talking horse comment--I really don't know why I deserved that, but when we hide behind our screens and--vitriol comes cheap.

...and Celery--are you LWM's sidekick or what??--it's like second grade all over again...(or maybe the first for some).

Signed Clearly,

Ed Richter

There was no bbq sause in da' Nam! You in the rear? you pay 5- bucks for boom-boom and hand-job @ GWB's hand steamed meat ranch, or what? You serve in number TEN green Baloney recon Outfit"

You in the Texas Air National Guard Bank Embezzlement Industry?

What bbq boys scout Kitt-Carson unit (not Kitt, Kitt Carson's were spy-trolls and served as informants in war times that I'm familiar about, somewhat)

or CID GI Spy Rat outfit are you talkin' 'bout? Inform USA's citizens, please?

The difference is between somewhat regulated surveillance and totally unregulated surveillance. -- sysprog

Thanks for the help, I've given DClaw some references that seem to indicate Arnold has gone to the 9th circuit and an article that cites past practice of searches and seizures of laptops.

Regarding the distinction between "somewhat" and "totally unregulated," (I presume you're referring to phone calls) the former pivots around some sort of probable cause, yes? It would seem that just the sifting of millions of calls requires a method that defines their "probable cause".

I also remember somewhere that in WW1 I believe, all overseas communication (telegrams) were examined. This program falls considerably short of that, but it seems that's the concept most have, of how these things work. Technology is definitely progressing faster than the law.

PS. If you caught the rebuff I gave to Rosenberg about how his definition of journalist covered everyone on this blog comments section, it was your research skills that made the connection. You may not agree with my point to Rosenberg, but let me join the others that marvel at your ability to bring new information on board.

You are absolutley correct. I was simply reflecting the modern equivalent of your wars' delicacies to mine.

I was hoping you would pick that up without explanation, but it seems lost on you.

Like all fossils--you are fixed in time, unable to see beyond your own dimming memories of glories past.

Go collect your social security check, boomer. Your generation has failed us all.

All the ranting about Blue Dog Democrats & etc, and vows to make sure "progressives" start winning instead, are just so much spitting against the wind. On and off over the years I've lived in Indiana. The likelihood that that state is going to elect lots of Democrats who favor gun control, and none who are pro-life and/or hold to a variety of other "conservative" positions, is less than zero. And yes, apparently a lot of them will vote for things like this FISA obscenity. If, however, the goal is to make sure Speaker Pelosi *is* such, one is going to accept that sort of Democrat from any number of areas in the nation. But in the meantime, Madame Speaker must do her job.

Go collect your social security check, boomer. Your generation has failed us all.

-- Ed Richter

Dear Ed, there is an old saying that my WWII generation mother taught me: two wrongs don't make a right. Ever heard it?

I'm sorry you feel insulted (and I don't blame you). However, there is no need to start swinging and insulting those around you.

As with any large group of people, there are good members and not-so-good members. So far, I'm not amazingly impressed with the Gen-x and y group, either, but it seems counterproductive to insult and dismiss them all.

If they want something from me, they have to dance at my show this time, I'm sick of being represented by the Captains of Industry, and I won't forgive people who vote against the People's interests.

Quite awhile ago, before one of the other elections (2000? 2004), I decided to write up my own "platform." It contained issues that I thought should be covered, but weren't.

The distance we've traveled since then, though, means that if I were to do the same thing now, the document might have a few similarities, but a lot of it would be very different.

As Chris Dodd said, he can hardly believe that we've come to a place where it's necessary to campaign on restoring the Constitution.