Are you consulting for TDS now, Glenn?

I suspect that's a symbiotic relationship. They read the blogs and we watch the shows. There is definitely some cross-pollination of ideas, tropes and memes going on.

You probably won't see him coming out to do anything on this. I'm sorry if some of you had your illusions dashed. That'll teach you to have illusions.

Glenn... The fact that you criticize someone for doing X doesn't mean you had illusions that they would do anything different. It just means that what they did is worthy of criticism.

I'll never understand why it is that when a criticism of someone is voiced, people confuse it to mean that you're shocked or surprised by what they're doing.

Hence:

"Obama should have displayed more leadership on this issue."

"This shocks you that he didn't? That will teach you not to have illusions."

Of course I agree with this. Politicians, or more accurately the ones we elect, don't spring fully formed from the elections like Athena from the mind of Zeus. They must be constantly minded, criticized and cajoled into doing the right things. Most of them do in time if enough pressure can be brought to bear on them. This is no less true of Obama than any simple city council member or minor bueaucratic functionary on the local school board. As we've discussed before, no one says that adnoto's idea of chaining himself and hundreds of others (because that's all he get) to the gates of the White house is wrong or a waste of time and energy, it just isn't sufficient. The people in power now did not get their by marching and demonstrating and chaining themselves to gates.

Sherrie,

I do not accept this

I looked at your previous letter from back in march of this year when you were quite upbeat. I do not think yesterday was "the day the music died". We've all been listening to music since the day Buddy Holly died. Just the same, perhaps you and some here would benefit from a quick review of The 5 stages of grief identified by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross:

Denial (this isn't happening to me!)

Anger (why is this happening to me?)

Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)

Depression (I don't care anymore)

Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

And get on with it until your dead.

"Would everybody stop getting shot?!" also works unfortunately well in these circumstances.

Back to sort of on topic, why couldn't President Obama work to expose just what the telecom companies did, regardless of amnesty? Laws that kept their dealings secret could be rescinded, and the people involved could start talking (or with enough pressure, be compelled to talk). Of course, this would imply that President Obama would have any incentive to look into the matter, which is where we come in.

I do not recall if it was a Swedish or Swiss government official, who when asked what type of government his country had, replied, "experimental." He went on to explain that their government was not dominated by a conservative, socialist, communist, fascist, or democratic philosophy. The leaders in their government would either be informed of or observed a problem. Upon recognition of the problem, after careful consideration that included much of what modern science has revealed, representatives presented possible solutions. They would then choose a solution that had evidence of probable success, but they were not married to their choice. If the desired outcome was not achieved in a specified amount of time they dumped the choice and chose another solution or examined the problem again. The concept of a solution being chosen because it conformed to political perspective was thought of as lazy or ineffectual, because such choices are not subjected to the intellectual rigor necessary to create useful legislation.

Sacrificing "due diligence" for a default ideological perspective is ignorance without humility, and irritating.

Some younger politically active people complained that the baby boomers were AWOL, so they taught materialism, navel gazing, and taking care of personal responsibilities. They left the door open without challenge for cynical and callous barbarians to seize power. When some of the brightest and the best dropped out there was little competition for power.

Conservatives did not seek alternatives, they took their perception of reality and ran with it to acquire power. When the radical right saw the American people did not protest when their fundamental democratic right, of one man one vote was stolen from them, it empowered the radicals to examine exactly what policies or actions they could get away with while Americans remained passive. As we have seen, the answer is a great deal.

They have learned that with a little shine, a whole-lotta BS, and the complicity of the news media they would come off appearing to be political geniuses. Appearances are often not what they seem; it wasn't genius they possessed it was a criminal consciousness, and the naive' usually mistake the latter for the former.

If you didn't watch Countdown last night check out the site and Olbermann's exchange with the always sterling G W University Constitutional Law Expert, Jonathan Turley. In about five minues Turley eloquently lays out the whole sickening mess behind "the evisceration of the 4th amendment," as he aptly refers to the FISA bill. Among other things, Turley maintains the only reason Congress shelved the bill last time was due to the outrage expressed by "civil libertarians and bloggers"...but they've just been waiting for that resistance to dissipate. And the reason the Dems won't let the bill sunset? For "self-protection" - CYA! Our fearless leaders have been patiently waiting for us go away...we need to ensure that never happens! It's Friday and today's the day for the vote. Time to get our pitchforks and torches and storm the castle.

Glenn wrote, "Obama and his staff are "literally reviewing the bill right now and will make a statement shortly.""

1. Within a month of Obama winning the nomination this new FISA bill appears.

2. The bill has a sunset clause of 5 years, which would be after Obama's second election.

Given these 2 remarkable co-incidences, I believe this bill was engineered by Obama to improve his electoral chances on the presumption that the media would blast him on security if its telcos subsidiaries or bosses were not granted immunity.

Obama needs to weave a new narrative on security i.e. that we shouldn't change America in response to terrorism.