You may be reading Susan Swain wrong. I watch WJ regularly and find her to be the fairest and most sympathetic host that they have. Some of the others tend to be sourpusses who go out of their way to be annoyingly bland and impersonal. Maybe it's because she's been there forever, but Swain puts a bit more of herself into WJ and it might sometimes come across the wrong way. Plus, I suspect that the people who really annoy her are all the right-wing astroturfers reading from emails that they got from Rush Limbaugh and the RNC the night before. One of them actually called her "naughty" this morning (for cutting off wingnut callers no less), to which she came back with "I'm sorry that you think of me as naughty, caller" and a snarky smile.

But she's my favorite host, so maybe I'm just biased. ;-)

Now if Brian Lamb had done this, you might be onto something...

I know mentioning names is embarrassing. None are left out. Wees all bystanders and participants in an interesting history. G- I so glad to meet you. Serious.

@ 7:45 pantanal and CarolynC made me remeber a Peruvian 3rd generation herbalist, a know-er of natural plant remedies. The man from Peru said to me and some other guest in my home: "The harvest is ripe, the workers are relatively few, considering how serious the potential future pain could possibly be..."

It stuck in my ear like duck-tape.

O, there are Swenskers, Thomas c., CarolynC, Mona's, and Phoenix Women to calm William T.? He needs you real bad. Thanks that you can do it. Not me. He too old of a sneezer. Achoo.

no napkin?

He uses the table cloth.

I see many good bystanders: BobG- I really enjoy ya's geezers and yowza gals, also. Even those who lie like a duck. I feel like a mangy horse's main, or uncombed tail that needs some brushing down and braided. Maybe I'll lean up against a make-believe pretend kissing tree. O, hug a whale today too. O, I'm so glad for good malcontents. I come, I go.

And I'm always glad for damn GG.

Call us by our real true name?

We are Everybody.

One of my Senators (Durbin) knew what I was talking about and said Durbin "strongly opposes" the FISA modification bill.

Obama's flunkie didn't know what I was talking about at first, and then said the Senator "doesn't support it." I told the guy it wasn't enough "not supporting" it. Obama needs to take firm action to stop it.

I also called my Rethug rep. I left a message with the flunkie, trying to paint a picture of HRClinton with this unrestrained power. I doubt that did any good, but I tried.

Journalist: "What sort of government have you crafted, sir?"

Rockefeller's response: "A banana republic, and the rich will keep it."

(apologies to Mr. Franklin)

What, if any, implications are there regarding warrant-less surveillance that took place before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

My memory is probably faulty on this - and I may be conflating different news items - but are there not allegations in the EFF suit of AT&T providing consumer data to federal agencies before 9/11? Sorry for wasting your time if I'm off base on this.

That poor intern, he sounds overwhelmed.

GG:

The procedure is that the telecom lawyers go into the court, ex parte - - GlennGreenwald - - Thursday, October 18, 2007 08:30 AM

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e051.htm

EX PARTE - Lat. 'By or for one party' or 'by one side.'

Refers to situations in which only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge. Such meetings are often forbidden.

Although a judge is normally required to meet with all parties in a case and not with just one, there are circumstances where this rule does not apply.

- - The 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY

Some emergency cirucumstances may necessitate "ex parte" meeting and rulings, sometimes.

But we should view with extreme suspicion any bill that would mandate or permit an "ex parte" proceeding, and we should especially view with even more suspicion an "ex parte" proceeding which isn't appealable.

When such an "ex parte" (single-sided) proceeding is used to cancel a previous contract between a customer and a vendor, relieving the vendor of its obligations and leaving the customer without any recourse, that's a violation of free-market principles -- those principles that "conservatives" once claimed to follow. Apparently, the "free market" that "conservatives" now believe in is one in which large companies are "free" to hire squadrons of high-priced lawyers and lobbyists and other assorted prostitutes, while, of course, accusing the underpaid lawyers on the other side of being motivated by greed.

and it's a cop out.

The current situation of a consolidation of Autocracy with the active connivance and complicity of a majority of the Congress and the courts is unprecedented. Nothing like this has happened in this country before, not even during the supposedly "dictatorial" FDR administration.

Always, throughout our couple of hundred years of independent history, there has been a very clear and very forthright guarding of the privileges of the separate branches of government, until now. This has been true even when those branches were aligned in mutual service to plutocracy. But now we find all three branches synchronizing with one another and taking orders from the Autocratic executive. There has never been anything like this in this country's history.

The Progressive reforms that began with Teddy Roosevelt, while highly authoritarian, were premised on notions of doing away with systemic and endemic federal government corruption that had characterised most of the nation's history till then, and in building institutions which could ensure the health, well-being, security and prosperity of Americans far into the future. The Progressive reforms were mostly very successful.

Even Nixon was a "Progressive" compared to today's abominations in office.

And it started coming to an end with the advent of Ronald Reagan, with his deliberate and determined undermining of the Public Interest in favor of individual and private interests.

I don't know that Autocracy was ever part of his program, but illegality certainly was (what was Iran-Contra but completely illegal?) as was defiance of the Will of the People in pursuit of private power, profit and gain.

Some people recognized the upshot, however, the inevitable reversion that would take place if the Reaganite program was allowed to proceed unfettered. It would lead to a Medievalist Revival, a superstitious culture, a warlord society, ultimately Autocracy.

And here we are.

No, it has not always been this way. The current situation is new for Americans, and the disorientation it's causing is profound.

What do you do? We have few domestic clues to how to deal with the imposition of an alien Autocracy on our Nation, it has never happened before, and everything we've been taught for the last century insists it can't happen here.

Well, it has happened.

Now what?

If you are financially supporting any of the complicit Democrats, stop it. Withdraw all financial support from the DNC, DCCC, DSCC. Insist that others do the same. It will have no immediate effect (apparently they've raised so much money already, they really don't care -- right now -- whether you contribute or not, but the message will reach them eventually.)

If you have money in banks, take it out. Put it in credit unions.

If you use any of the complicit telcom services, stop. I know that's hard. In some areas you may not have much choice, but do what you can.

Those are the simpler things that, if enough people do them, will have an effect on the way The Powers That Be perceive the public.

Right now, they see us as essentially passive, easily controlled, unwilling to take risks. They are right. As the Constitution has been shredded, passivity has increased. Their profits have skyrocketed. Their tax burden continues to decline, and our services are sacrificed for endless wars and absolutely gargantuan levels of corruption.

We can live with a certain level of authoritarianism -- Americans are more than accustomed to it. What we are not accustomed to is Autocracy accompanied by its many urges to atrocity, illegality, and compulsive theft.

It might have been stopped some years ago (2001, 2002, even 2003) if enough people in positions of rank and power actually stood their ground against the looming Autocratic future, but they did not. It might have been stopped if The People had been persistent in their opposition. They were not.

Now it really is too late to stop it. Which does not mean We're Doomed and must knuckle under or go abroad.

It means we first have to come to an understanding of what this New America really is and what its purpose is in the Vast Eternal Scheme. And then we have to come up with something radically better.

Just as snark is not a policy, mere opposition to the Autocracy isn't a program. Saying "No" is important, but it's not the end of the process. Come up with a radical (and yes, under the circumstances, it has to be forthrightly radical) program to say Yes to. It's about who we are, not about what we have or what we want.

The roadmap already exists: the Constitution and the Progressive era reforms.

It shouldn't take a generation or more to figure out a way forward.