Let's see...so concerned are they about my privacy that my bankers require a 15 character password, my mother's maiden name, and the last four digits of my SSN to access my account on the bank's Web site. Yet whenever it feels like it, the government siphons all this data out of an AT&T closet somewhere and sends it to Fort Meade. Judging by how many credit card offers I receive when my account is flush, and how few when it isn't, I gather that the bank's business partners, or just about anyone else, for that matter, can also take a peek whenever they like simply by paying the costs of the data transfer transaction.

The Republicans think that this is good for commerce, and essential to the Global War on Terror. The Democrats try not to think about it at all.

If anyone objects, he can be carried off and tortured without the inconvenience of any legal process considered constitutionally essential prior to 9/11/2001. The new attorney general, like the old one, is very satisfied that this is in the best interest of all citizens.

Did I miss anything?

ot

was missing a N.

I am not hating.

I type as gentile.

How about go there and lay on your back at Kimbrough Army Hospital at Fort Meade. I tease. Instead of a second arterial burst causing a Code Blue, drink honey Mead and pretend you are on a Honeymoon with Phoenix women. William and other who were "brats" on base always give me bumpy-skin shiver-chills

and those darn gooses-kin kinda better kindred flashbacks.

P.S. Hide the dough in a honey jar in a caged hen-coop for a fly-bye night rainy day?

Yes, thanks -- your advice to avoid being wired in as much as you can, and to live simply, is good advice, but difficult for all 300 million to follow.

On the other hand, we may not have realized it at the time, but we voted for cell phones, air-conditioning and Wal*Mart long ago. We never learned how to manage such things -- it may even be that they're unmanageable -- but I don't know what else to do but try. the Whole Earth Catalog was a fine model for individuals here and there, but for a whole society, I don't know.

We may never be able to fulfill Brautigan's vision of Machines of Loving Grace, but if we could just figure out how not to send another generation of bebops off to pay for our demonic necessities with their blood, I'd be at least a little happier, and a little more optimistic that we might someday manage the rest.

I had the cash I'd buy you a town car to mend the riff.

I'd purchase for you a pink Marmon V- 16 Town Car to ride out of New York City. forgive me? okay. a good Jewish believer is the scriptures assures me you already have. And you forgive me

without my even asking.

unconditionally. Sweet.

Thanks dam-nit sugarman.

How about a bowl of mizo turnip soup?

No one likes it but me around here. Why?

'um say it stinks? It smells fragrant and its so delicious I have had three bowls for b-fast already. Want a toasted poppy seed bagel with it. I try to show hillbilly hospitality to you city slicks who may not eat pork chops. Accept this: I do apologize to you for that. I can't prove your keyboard is pork-rind fat. Let's be healthy and stop the nonsense before Glenn gets outta the barn and chases us with a pitchfork and spoon.

"It has long been known that the CIA has been waterboarding detainees..."

A list of names please.

At last your cards are on the table. The Rule of Law is "naive"; the Constitution is "naive."

Would you quit trying to "mind read" for non-existent gotchas? If I thought the Constitution was naive, I wouldn't have said the system would survive us. I'm was referring to your view of humanity, and the worth of imposing your view of morality on others. I also had confused you with another poster that was upset about my knock on pacifism.

When Bush took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," he didn't really mean it; is that what you're saying? And that's fine with you? Go ahead and type it in black and white so we all can read it.

This reminds me that we have two conflicting views of why Bush does what he does. Our side views the country as being at war and Bush as defending the country by all possible means. I believe your side views the country is NOT at war, and Bush does what he does as a power grab. Yes?

I would then have to ask why you apparently don't take solace in the upcoming change of administration. Do you think Bush is going to do a Chavez and change the terms of office? If he is merely accumulating power to himself why would he give it up next year? Sorry but that particular scenario isn't convincing.

You know, you movement conservatives really are repellent, evil people. The "rules" are for everybody else; not you. Secretly gay senators passing anti-gay legislation; "law and order" advocates guilty of tax evasion and bribery; elected officials breaking laws left and right. No wonder the world has contempt for us with your gang in charge.

LOL, oh please. You're going to go "holier than thou"? How about openly gay representatives being hounded out of office for legal behavior, shady land deals by the Senate majority leader, and another Senator voting business to her husband? And that doesn't even get to the Clintons. That's not a productive line of argument.

At least you're finally being honest about your exceptionalist worldview: you believe that your country and your leaders are above the law.

Not at all. Like FDR before us, we think that being at war tilts the Constitution toward the executive. That of course brings up the "manufactured war" objection, which I can understand is a product of splendid isolation from real events in the mideast and Europe. As I've said before, we are the beneficiaries of geography. Try to imagine all the illegals in our country belonging to a religion discounting our right to live. That's the European situation.

It is very seductive to grab the moral high ground and declare your view is the most righteous when there is no evident consequence. Like Jamie Gorelick's memo that the DOJ should erect an intelligence wall that goes beyond what the Constitution requires, a "blow for righteousness" is struck. Right up until it's seen as partially responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.

I still can't understand why innocent people should be allowed to sacrificed to protect YOUR point of view. That seems to be the height of monomaniacal arrogance. For all the sturm and drang about "torture", at least in our version the prisoner lives. So it remains that other people can suffer so that another person will not be discomforted. To me that seems to be a twisted around version of every totalitarian murderer who would put people to death that make him uncomfortable. Isn't that evil?