Thanks for the shout out. I didn't bother responding to the comment you quoted. I believe in free speech, but I also think that meaningful deliberation is best done without insults and extremism. I'm known for facilitating lively and controversial debates in my classes, but I never let students insult, ridicule, disparage, etc., and I wouldn't want to condone that here. (Cue the candy-*ss comments.)

Is it hot out or is it just me?

I wouldn't want to deprive Salon the revenues derived from an increase in site traffic, but I don't see much point in playing the game. If there are bonus points awarded for responses to comments, let them troll for those someplace else.

"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy," Pelosi said, announcing her support for the bill.

The President breaks the law, so you pass a law that makes his law-breaking legal, to show him that he can't break the law.

Yeah, that'll show him!

Whatever happened to the loyal opposition? Does no one in Washington take a principled stand any more? Am I that naive?

[sigh] I guess I am. It's becoming tougher and tougher to remain a Democrat.

Google Lt.Gen. Van Riper Iranian war games

How old were you in 1990? 2 or 3 yrs? It was actually talked about quite a bit on CNN that we couldn't stack up to Iraq's Army but you were probably too young back then to remember. I remember it very well.

-- bucks4mccain

You don't need any help exposing you as an idiot. You're on your own.

Plus HR1955 (which passed the House overwhelmingly) and its Senate version, S1959 (which is in committe); plus presidential diktats (signing statements, executive orders, and presidential carte blanche on all matters related to "national security"); plus "enhanced interrogation" of "enemy combatants"; plus REX-84; plus indefinite detention w/o trial; plus over-classification to keep it all off the front page; equals police state.

Oh, snap! You only need to worry about all this high-minded stuff if yer a terr'rist, however that may be defined by whomever's in power at any given time.

An ever-shifting definition of "enemy" and "terrorist" would be chaos, of course, so what we need now is to make sure that the people in power can stay in power forever - or at least that only like-minded people can attain positions of power. Then the final brick will be in place and Fortress America will stand tall and strong for 1,000 years.

Question: Would a Constitutional convention be deemed a threat to national security?

It was actually talked about quite a bit on CNN that we couldn't stack up to Iraq's Army

Ummm, actually, no. This is simply false. Perhaps you can do some research on CNN's own site, where they have a links to a special they did that features some samples of their own coverage. I don't think many voices on air said that "we couldn't stack up to Iraq's Army." You might want to check it out...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/

Also, thanks for what I take to be your service to our nation. I am grateful for your contribution.

You are the man.

peace out salon.

Seriously, if you don't have anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about do you?

I know there has to be some subtlety I am missing in this slogan because I can't figure out what the victims of the 9/11 attacks were hiding to deserve their fate.

Since this obviously makes no sense, we need to update the slogan. Let's try:

"If you don't have anything to hide from a government then you don't have anything to worry about do you?"

Since the 9/11 attackers were not associated with a government, we have at least eliminated the offensive idea that the victims of 9/11 were hiding something that resulted in their death.

We still have some problems to address. The idea that revealing US troop movements and plans to an enemy government is the best way to not have to worry about anything is pretty stupid. So we need to update our slogan again.

"If you don't have anything to hide from your government then you don't have anything to worry about do you?"

This slogan would suggest that the people of Iraq had nothing to worry about under Saddam, so we need another update.

"If you don't have anything to hide from the US government then you don't have anything to worry about do you?"

Now we are getting somewhere. We do need to account for spies, since obviously we wouldn't stop worrying about a member of Al Qaeda just because they infiltrated the US government. So...

"If you don't have anything to hide from the US government, as long as there are no spies in the government, then you don't have anything to worry about do you?"

We are getting much closer, but we still have a few holes to close. Since we are a democracy, we have to deal with the terrible fact that the people might actually elect to government someone who, through their sincere public policy pronouncements, should be considered a spy. In order to distinguish a covert spy from an overt spy we need another update.

"If you don't have anything to hide from the US government, as long as there are no enemies in the government, then you don't have anything to worry about do you?"

Much better. We now realize that purging enemies from the government is as important as having nothing to hide when it comes to having nothing to worry about. Our slogan still has a problem. It is a rather indirect way of making our point and the "something to hide" part is contingent upon there being no enemies in government. So....

"Until we purge the US government of enemies and spies, we should be worried about the information we give the US government."

Not nearly as catchy, but much closer to being accurate.

From the kos. your not alone glen. But don't worry. It's not making it through the senate. I bet you they are talking now. How would hoyer and the other Aye's dem's look then?

"Senator Obama, Time to Lead

by mcjoan

Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM PDT

The ACLU on today's reprehensible House vote:

"It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.

"No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."

Senator Obama, spoil Bush's FISA Christmas celebration. Remind your colleagues that he is a lame duck with a sub 30 approval rating. Remind your colleagues that they are far more popular with Republicans than with their own party.

Remind your colleagues that, in your own words, "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players."

Reject this bill and lead your Senate colleagues in upholding the Constitution.

"