Want to give up your cell phone? That's improbable, but not impossible.

Just how stoopid are you, Sh**ter?

OJ: "You can't convict me. Hell, it would just so totally ruin my retirement, and think of all the great Hertz commercials you'd be missing...."

Cheers,

Enjoy.

Heh.

Have fun doing your little end-zone dance; I'll still have your back when you're complaining about how President Hillary wants to use all these great domestic surveillance powers "your" side has given her.

I reaally seems like it doesn't matter what the white house does, this congress will give its' blessing.

I am starting to have a real hard time beleving this is still about politics.

Just posted on Dodd's web site:

Today Senator Dodd will send a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid informing him that he will be placing a hold on FISA legislation that includes amnesty for telecommunications companies who enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

Take action and add your name to the list of people who don't want the Senate to provide telecom companies with amnesty for violating Americans' civil liberties. Visit http://chrisdodd.com/fisa to stand with Chris Dodd today.

Help spread the word, use the code below to embed on your blog or MySpace page and support Senator Dodd an his stand against the FISA bill:

Link for code to embed and blog post:

http://tinyurl.com/2a6e89

Ron Paul

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/members/photos/228/P000583.jpg

Rick Santorum

http://www.screenhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/rick-santorum.jpg

Bonus Santorum

http://home.netcarrier.com/~rstevens/Rick_Santorum.jpg

Jughead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jughead_Jones

http://www.saigan.com/kidscorner/comics/jughead.jpg

Go sign the petition at ChrisDodd.com. Make a donation! He's lobbying for us, let's help him do it.

RMP: sorry, mate - I think my post was probably unclear. I did (of course!) vote for Glenn on the bloggerschoiceawards.com. That's why I said "us". I was intending to say that while scores of us voted for Glenn in what is essentially a popularity contest, it's equally, if not far more, important to post on Chris Dodd's blog. Apologies if that was unclear.

bamage: Good Goad! You wrote: "OK DanOz you goaded me into leaving a comment for Sen. Dodd"

Good on you mate! (That's OzSpeak for "Well done, buddy!")

Imagine how effective it would be if Glenn's many remarkable posters (he flattered blithely) contributed at Senator Dodd's site a scintilla of the brilliance they post here daily, particularly on this crucial issue. With abject apologies for omissions, I naturally refer to (in vaguely alphabetical order): bamage, bebop-o, bethincary, Binx, BobbyG, Cassio Bella, CarolynC, Che Pasa, Chris C, Conservative Slayer, cocktailhag, Paul Dirks, Frankly, My Dear, Jack Hughes, JackHinJersey, Holly McLachlan (!) Bryan Hayward, Iokannan, Jedimaster, Jordan Orlando, Kovie, Kitt, ktdawg, Mona, ondelette, orbitboy, Paul Rosenberg, pantanal, Phoenix Woman, Svensker, Susan Mc, sysprog, SomeNYGuy, thomas c, William Timberman, Jim White, Wabanatta, Yellow Dog etc.

Imagine how motivated Sen Dodd would be by a concerted push from even a fraction of such a dazzlingly eloquent group! Imagine how gratified this group would be (he goaded, shamelessly) to know they had convinced an honourable Senator to exercise his all-important "hold".

And of course Glenn and the rest here who take action for their convictions.

While I agree with the force of that statement, I think all the poor people who have been executed or put in prison when they were innocent because they couldn’t buy a fair trial, would agree with you.

I agree with you there as well. It's obviously something that needs fixing. I have noted on the Web and other places that new forensics techniques have demonstrated the existence of the "elephant in the room"; that juries, despite the supposedly strong protections of our system of law, do in fact convict innocent persons, and generally on the basis of "eye-witness" testimony. I think that the courts need to acknowledge that "witnesses" are generally not very reliable, and are to some extent becoming superfluous in today's world even (in a CT case, it took considerable "legal gymnastics" for the state supreme court to put aside a conviction where the DNA evidence proved the defendant not guilty, but the jury nonetheless refused to disbelieve the "eyewitness" testimony; as the law is structured, courts are [generally] required to adhere to jury verdicts as the final arbiter of the evidence). Juries need to be made aware of it. And then there's the problem of prosecutors that refuse to admit errors (or are motivated by other than a search for true justice), as well as the pernicious effect of plea-bargaining and other inducements for the desired "testimon" (that in any rational would would be bribery anr/or witness tampering, but not as it stands if done by the state).

But the theory is that innocents have nothing to fear. And I'd point out that well-defended and well-to-do clients with nominal positions of honour, respect, or authority within the community have nothing to fear ... even if guilty.

Cheers,

I just called Dodd's office and they told me that he "just now put a hold on the amesty bill".

Very good news.

Show him the love, people. Dig into your pockets. Give 'til it hurts.

see http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/top-spy-asked-t.html

If true, it would be nice what info they got out of this spying BEFORE 9/11... If all this spying did not prevent 9/11, how should all this spying now prevent a new one? Put on a tin-foil hat and you can make some crazy allegations with this one (as in regards to 9/11).

The cracked pot had me flashback: I spent a day with interpreters outside of Hanoi visiting villagers. Tea. Rice wine. Burning incense at graveyards.

This memory: A old Lady ask, "Why did the American mothers allow their husbands, sons [daughters], and loved ones to come 10,000 miles away from their home to die in our Motherland?"

I did my best to respond. When I left there were chuckles from a deep inner base within each person present. I asked, "What's everybody laughing about?"

Via interpreters I learned in Vietnamese language, which is prose and poetical, the expression, "Anh yu am." (I forget the spelling) The expression is innocent endearment. A though. It sound like: "I'm You Am."

The interpretation of this can vary. It's usually a quiet, unexpressed true sentiment. It means: (the Lady looked upper eighties to me) I love you. I could ask you into my bed. It's not possible, tho, sad to think that (the thought is quit, held within, usually, not verbalized, but those old Ladies, rascals, yep), but in nature all things are possible. Maybe yes, and maybe some day. I think. 'I hope. I sure do hope to do that too.

In practical thought.

The Capital Hill gang,

has gone to change or go.

_

In 1972 I remember reading a Henry Kissinger article titled: 'Lessons Learned from Vietnam." He said, "We should have bombed North Vietnam more fiercely earlier on in the war."

And I kid you not. He's still around and wow-not-dead yet? Well. Woe. Lol.