Nail the defender to the cross his indescretions.

I ask for no quarter and give none.

-- Ed Richter

Ed, lighten up, why don't ya?

You know, it would be an interesting exercise for those with an interest to collaborate and come up with a "voters' platform." I wonder if it's something we could do at Gordon's blog...

In the meantime, I keep posting about this, but not everyone gets to see every post, or if they do, they don't always click on every link provided, but this one really is key. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

I don't blame you for not wanting to contribute to causes that take you for granted, etc. In fact, last election cycle I responded to one more request from Chuck Schumer asking for money... and I told him in no uncertain terms exactly why I was not donating any money (besides the fact that I had so little then). Later on, when I did have a bit, I only used it toward Blue America candidates.

Anyway, Christy at FDL, had a post a few days ago, with a link to Down with Tyranny about the results of the Blue America candidates compared with who voted yes or now on FISA

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/05/a-bit-of-good-news/#comments

There are probably other posts at both places by now.

I've been thinking about the implications of our new FISA, in particular the much discussed provision allowing the government to monitor communications "directed at" someone "reasonably believed" to be outside the US, without having to get a court order whatsoever.

We are increasingly an internationalized country and an integrated globe. Modern communications systems, transportation systems, and the exponential expansion of multinational commerce and international tourism mean that the probability of the average citizen engaging in some sort of international communication is higher than ever. In some cases, it is a significant portion of a person or corporation's communications.

Journalists, particularly during times of war or global unrest, communicate internationally on a regular basis. Politicians, Members of Congress, and representatives of lawful intergovernmental organizations do so as well. All these people often must relay potentially sensitive, confidential, and privileged information through email, phone, or fax across international boundaries.

Most often, a defense of an alleged violation of the 4th Amendment hinges upon an argument that the target had no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Increasingly, the courts have adopted the circular premise that, as our technological capability to invade privacy (data mining, remote sensing, etc.) increases, our expectations of privacy diminish, thereby allowing the government to utilize these ever-expanding technological capabilities without violating the 4th Amendment.

Not only do I reject this perniciously circular reasoning, but when it comes to international communications, I argue that the precise opposite is true. Because more and more of our transactions, business, and other communications are unavoidably international, we in fact carry our "domestic" expectations of privacy into the international realm. Tell the mother of a college student in France that she has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation about a sick relative. Tell a businessman or lawyer faxing a client trade secrets or confidential information from India to the US that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. Sure, these people may come to begrudgingly accept the likelihood of government intrusion in such instances, but this surrender is itself the product of the government's aggressive testing of our ever-shrinking boundaries of privacy. It's practically like telling someone they should have no expectation of privacy in their purely domestic phone calls because there's a well-known episode of 24 in which CTU scans an entire city's phone conversations for any mention of Jack Bauer's name.

In effect, as the tools and necessity for international communication increase, so has the government's power to intrude on those communications. This is completely backward.

I'd give up my land line if I didn't need it in case of emergencies. I can order a pizza over the net and that's about as much "emergency" as I like. Some people can't imagine surviving without them. I think it is part of the rapid pace of life these days. We are a very impatient culture.

I don't even have a land line at this point. My physical health is such that working right now isn't an option unless I want to end up in a wheelchair. So $$$ is extremely tight. I just came from spending 5-hours helping a friend's sister get her old computer hooked up to the 'net via DSL from Verizon. Two trips to Radio Shack and three calls to an Indian Call Center later I found the problem and was able to fix it. She's raising two grandkids (both parents are pretty much a waste) and just HAD TO HAVE THE INTERNET for them to use. Kids are 8 and 10 years old. So even though she doesn't have a pot to piss in and couldn't even afford to pay me anything she still feels the need to struggle and have internet access. Even the poor are feeling the pressure to have certain high-tech toys.

One election cycle and people are already stamping their feet and threatening to leave the Democratic party. Glenn does have a point. The ones who are weak enablers have to suffer consequences for that behavior. I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Politics isn't fast food. The GOP and the right have been working toward this for over 40 years. I'm getting on in years and I have no illusions about seeing any of this come to fruition in 30 or 40 years. I do it anyway because it is the right thing to do. I could just as easily take the short term view and not give a damn because I'll be dead soon. As it is I may see you at the next Green party meet-up.

I think the pressure of the past 6-years combined with Bush's general ... sleaziness have created a lot of rage in people. So they need to scream and yell and rend garments and basically, break some shit.

I only consciously realized this weekend that I've been pretty much angry for 27 years now over politics (although I did get a bit of a break with Clinton, but I was drinking a lot those days so I'm not sure which to attribute it to :-) starting with Reagan up to Bush II. IMO all of all current problems really started with Reagan. From the dismantling of the social safety net, the influence of the right-wing fundies, the whole me-me-me bullshit attitude, nearly everything.

Once I realized that it didn't get this bad overnight and wasn't going to be corrected quickly either, I was able to relax and accept what happened this weekend. The trick is to never G-I-V-E U-P no matter how tempting that option appears. I'm sure I stand on the shoulders of giants in some ways, and maybe 20-years from now when they chuck my sorry ass into clay someone else will stand on my shoulders.

Long term, and never give up.

Otherwise the shitters win ...