"Ultimately, what is most significant about all of this is how the most consequential steps our government takes -- such as endless expansion of its domestic spying programs with literally no oversight and constraints of law -- occur with virtually no public debate or awareness."

Why would the public need to know? The people it concerns are the ones with the money to get our gov'ts attention ... the rest - they're just proles:

In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middleaged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumors and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. ...The great majority of proles did not even have telescreens in their homes. Even the civil police interfered with them very little

“Could Someone Remind Me Where My A** Is, Given Two Hands & Flashlight?”

I have to grade you A minus on that reply.

Your answer was great; but you neglected to actually remind him. You do realize he can’t find it because his head, as always, is surrounded by it?

"It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism, which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary ..."

That was in the ellipse in the other quote

I just ran over to give my new human lots of pick-up hugs. You have the answer! It's all mothers' fault, as usual (kidding)--Rove and Cheney et al weren't picked up enough as babies. They cried. No one came. Now they have to control the world, lash out in anger, feel reactions. Somebody will come and hug them? But somebody must have looked at them, new babies, and loved them devotedly, thought they were perfect for a moment. Then let them sit and cry and now we're all paying?

What can we do? They have sapped all our strength. All we can do is hug. But they've let everyone keep guns, why?

Show you where? Private corporations? C'mon, L.W.M., this is me you're talking to.

And no, I'm not a grandpa just yet, but there've been some encouraging signs lately. The state of my posterity doesn't seem to be among the unnamed things which Aych knows that I don't, but then he claims Eros is a pussy compared to Thanatos. It's pointless to argue with him, except maybe to observe that mortals often make that mistake.

As for you, L.W.M., your hatpin is a little more subtle, but you really shouldn't try poking your friends with it.

But that was some stupid Stalinisto-American liberal commie surrender monkey district judge who don't know half of what those awesome chickenhawks from the NRO do.

Perhaps you've glossed over this part of your quote in your zeal to play judge, jury, and executioner?

The court also notes that based on the facts as alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, AT&T is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ constitutional claim

In short, all this is based on an allegation. Nothing has been decided yet, and may not be for years. For that matter it may be decided that giving the government access is illegal, but not the keyword searches or datamining. You do believe in the rule of law, right?

Which brings us back to my original point at the beginning. If telecom surveillance is the primary instrument for gathering intelligence, shutting that down leaves us blind. Perhaps, just perhaps, that's why Reid is doing what he is doing. If you have ever complained about the paucity of good intelligence, this digs us into a deeper hole. Meanwhile, I still haven't seen anything about eavesdropping.

We already know the govt was asking the major search engines for data. What about banks? Credit card companies? Insurance companies, health care providers? There's no reason to stop at the telcos. If the govt asks they'll comply in order to protect us.

I find no reasonable explanation for the complete capitulation of both sides of the aisle. Actually, Shooter's explanation makes the most sense: they know something we don't. This is, of course, no excuse for their lawbreaking and the dismantling of our Constitutional rights. But what could it be?

Could it be that they fear Zacarias Moussaoui's conviction might be overturned?

If you have ever complained about the paucity of good intelligence... -- shooter242

Oh, indeed we have, and when we did, it was you, shooter dear, that we were thinking of.

I too saw the Babington AP article. I read through it, curious to see what conclusions he would draw from the Democratic shambles. Here is a snippet that drew my eye:

Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.

This is bullshit, of course. It's hard to overestimate the impact of the Iraq war. Many of us are fed up with the Democratically led Congress not because we don't care about the Iraq War, but rather because we do care, rather passionately, and our Democratic "representatives" for the most part don't seem to share this passion. Further, the Democrats did not "[learn] too late they had no tools to force Bush...". They do have the tools. They don't have the desire or guts to use them. This myth that the Democrats are procedurally powerless only serves to give Bush's Democratic enablers cover. Mr. Babington would be well served to read GGs previous column exposing Harry Reid's nefarious doings. But then, he probably approves of the current mess.

If we are to get out of this mess through the electoral process we need to stop making excuses for the Democrats and rid ourselves of the Reids, Harmons, Rockefellers, Feinsteins, etc. They do not represent our interests.