Sorry, haven't read the column yet but I was wondering if anybody knows how Bebop-O is doing? Has his leg wound healed?

If you had a legitimate fear of your government torturing you for 5 years in a dungeon before sentencing you to 17 years in prison for a 'thought crime', you wouldn't be posting on this message board, and neither would Glenn write what he writes for that matter.

What say you to the fact that "The Land of the Free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world, bar none?

What's the matter, son, do you not understand or do you not value the concept of ‘rule of law.’?

although to people who actually travel outside the borders of the United States, the number of American journalists, missionaries, and tourists who have been kidnapped, forced to read derogatory statements about their country on videotape, and subsequently beheaded is a little more serious of a matter.

Oh- that's happened to how many Americans? Is that a big worry for you traveling around the world? Getting beheaded?

Remember, these were not my ideas, and I called them all absurd. You brought them up, quoting anonymous folks from random "conservative" websites who were afraid of various burkas and whatnot. But I do travel abroad, how about you? I just got back from Italy. Lovely country. They do swipe your passport in the internet cafes. Also to exchange currency. But they let you use the internet and they do exchange the money. Oddly, it didn't make me feel less free or somehow impinged upon that they asked for my passport. Never once did I think about beheadings, or terrorists for that matter.

Hmmmmm, what is a more legitimate concern for a traveling businessman? Being beheaded by religious fanatics or having his business phone calls listened in on overseas by a byzantine government that could then do any manner of a million things with such info if so desired- from nothing- to bartering it away to your politically connected competitors to holding onto to it in a file for later use . . to just making you afraid that your calls are being listened to. What would you worry more about if you were in London Or Riyadh or Tehran even. Being beheaded by fanatics working for the World Caliphate of your pinhead pussy nightmares or the privacy of your phone calls from your own government?

See- one fear is rational. One isn't.

The government bartering away my business information to my politically connected competitors is a rational fear I should hold? You're an idiot.

ANYTHING proposed or supported by Dick Cheney is 99% certain to benefit big business or big government.

Par for the course, as you might say. No worries, though. I'll be there the next time, and the time after that, and the time after that....

Good on you, William. Keep their feet to the fire on things that actually matter.

Say, didja see/read Gore's speech:

http://tinyurl.com/8hxjv

And he's a leader in other matters as well, Iraq, global warming, and this:

http://tinyurl.com/3x2fla

I say we forget these bastards that are so busy tearing each other down on silly things, and pick the folks that have the balls to not just masticate about "change" but to stand up and say things that will make a difference.

How about this ticket (from a brokered convention):

Gore/Dodd 2008

(or, if you prefer, the other way around).

Let's pick a ticket that serves us, not them (the rstwhile candidates that think themselves far more important than they act).

Cheers,

Some farkin' eeedjit wrte:

@ Hag, Paulpsd7

I was going to ignore this, like the ramblings of a street person on the corner, but you just had to bring it up again didn't you. Since I can knock off two birds with one post, it is now worth the effort to review Paulpsd7's effort.

First, worrying about a government that can track domestic communication is supported by history. Throughout history, most if not every regime with this ability has used it to spy on their political opponents. Them's just the unfortunate facts. In fact, FISA was enacted as a direct response to the Nixon Admin's practice of doing precisely that.

Perhaps it's beyond your abilities to understand that we aren't talking about wiretapping or eavesdropping?

Rrrrrrriiiggghhhhtt. This guy with a room temperature (Celsius) IQ -- or is it just a mile-deep dishonesty? -- is trying to say this is not about "wiretapping or eavesdropping". After all, we're just talking about the interception of telecommunications, and the tapping of OC3s by wiretap equipment like the Narus 6400.

Truly living on another planet or too stoopid to live.

Cheers,

Perhaps it's beyond your abilities to understand that we aren't talking about wiretapping or eavesdropping? I'd also be interested in hearing how computerized tracking of an entire networks worth of linkages goes back into history.

I never suggested that computerized tracking of networks goes back into history. Read it again, this time more slowly, and bring someone to help you with the big words. I said "tracking domestic communication" has gone on through history, and the regime that does it has generally used it to keep tabs on its political opponents. You can't refute that. While the current discussion, yes, revolves around monitoring of the network rather than wiretapping and evesdropping, it is undeniable that we do not know the full extent of this program. Preventing us from knowing the full extent is the precise purpose of BushCo's push for telecom immunity. Remember, this program used to be about tracking the phone calls of a handful of terrorists, and always with a warrant. Then it turned out there were no warrants. Then it turned out that they were tracking the phone calls of hundreds of millions of Americans. So, you need to accept that this program could well go beyond network tracking.

But let's assume that's as far as it goes. There is clearly an intelligence value to that tracking, or else they wouldn't be doing it. Right? So, if they directed this tracking at, say, Democratic candidates or particularly investigative journalists, logic dictates that they would derive this same value. And, given the current legislation, there would be no way to know how this was being abused.

Am I going too fast for you?

The question here is whether seeing the patterns of one random number (phone number) interacting with other random numbers, is a loss of his freedom.

Again, Shooter, these patterns are clearly of value to our intel services, or else they wouldn't be tracking them. If our government is gathering valuable intel on its citizens without a warrant, that is a loss of freedom.

Way to go guys. Maybe you can successfully expose every legitimate method of surveillance America has,

Shooter, this method is not legitimate. For that reason, BushCo is clamoring for telecom immunity. You don't need legal immunity for behavior that is legitimate. What part of that don't you understand?

Please, Shooter, I invite you to prove your banal stupidity once again.