But you see, it's bombast, all, and frought with fury.

At least we have hope!

And The Real Tuesday Weld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DsfzvMpG40

all one has left is ridicule and scorn. But, my heart's just not in it. Derbig, the charitable position argues that it must be spoof. The alternative is too sad to contemplate. As spoof, ya gotta admit, it's pretty freakin' funny. If it were for real... well, I'm going to default to It's not nice to kick puppies.

G'night, all.

Glenn is going to hate me for this, but I can't stand it any more. If credentialism is your thing (and Glenn despises it, which is why he won't like my going off on this tangent), here is what is true: Glenn Greenwald, at the time he graduated from the NYU Law School, either met or broke all records for AmJur awards. (If you do not know what those are, ask your so-smart lawyer spouse.) Upon graduation in the early 90s when many law grads were not able to find jobs, Greenwald was courted by some dozen of the best firms in the nation, and ended up choosing arguably the most elite of all: Wachtell, Lipton. (After a time, he voluntarily left to be his own boss at his own firm.)

I hold a law degree as well (from top tier school) -- don't have to ask my husband to parse legal issues for me. Today I finally read parts of the FISA bill that just passed. Glenn, his ACLU interview subject, Marty Lederman et al. are right, and whatever your hubby is telling you is wrong. Whether the truth reflects badly on Obama or not, for whom I still intend to vote.

...since we obviously cannot trust a President.

You have both VERY immature.

Even Roe v. Wade governs and restricts abortion.

So I was going to ask; to which federal agency do you apply to get permission for an abortion? Or would you prefer the government should have access to your records and make a decision on whether they "reasonably believed" you were entitled to one?

The Government, as a collective, has decided that anyone who presses 'constitutional' arguments is a radical extremist who need not be listened to. Anyone who promotes the idea that the Rule of Law should apply equally to the highest and the lowest is a radical extremist who need not be listened to. Anyone who insists on withdrawal from Iraq and the end of America's New Imperium is a radical extremist who need not be listened to. Anyone who insists on impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors is a radical extremist who need not be listened to. Anyone who even mentions "war crimes" in connection with any representative of The Government is a radical extremist who need not be listened to.

Now, that's "off the cuff writing! Splendid! But don't worry, che, don't worry! I know it's a cliche', but it'll all change as soon as a Democrat is elected. And if it happens to be a non-white Democrat...

Frankly most of Glenn's discussion was mostly on the telecom immunity. Well you must have laws to govern. Even Roe v. Wade governs and restricts abortion. Yes I guess they could have just kept the old 1978 FISA bill, but then that did not work under Bush did it?

I did not see much point in going after Telcom in civil litigation. That frankly does nothing to protect your privacy rights going forward. I do however believe that our privacy rights are just as protected under the new FISA as the old.

The new FISA bill gives is greater oversight by congress, and the exclusivity clause prevents a presidents like Bush from authorizing surveillance without congressional over sight. I frankly do not agree with some of Glenn's analysis.

The find the discussion of blaming Obama for not stopping FISA and then some bloggers saying they will not vote to be very immature. I suspect they were never were strong Obama supporters anyway.

"The ACLU's National Security Project."

Can somebody please remind me what we might find on the short list of the ACLU's contribution(s) to "National Security"? Quite seriously, one might be able to argue that the ACLU tries to protect civil liberty principles in the face of increased national security measures. In that respect, whether you agree with the ACLU or not, they would be best regarded as "The National Security Counter-weight." But a "National Security Project"? Yeah, right.

-- Elephantman

Yeah right, indeed. We have seen how much security this fascist regime under your hero dick cheney has bought us - trillions wasted on an utterly reckless, completely unnecessary, incompetently executed and catastrophic occupation of a country that posed no serious threat, the crippling of our military strength and the locking down of our entire army in South-Central Baghdad in perpetuity ("the Surge is Working!"), loss of international respect for the United States and an enormous growth in outright hatred of the U.S. worldwide, the crippling of our economy, and an enormous increase in our indebtedness to our economic rival China. All of this enormous damage to our true security occurred precisely because of the illegal and unconstitutional secretive policies undertaken by the cheney regime. And these self-destructive abuses are precisely what the ACLU is attempting to prevent in the future. So yes, the efforts of the ACLU work toward true security for this country while the criminal acts of the cheney regime do enormous damage to our security - no matter how loudly they bleat about their 'war on terror'. No one can rationally argue that the cheney regime has not enormously weakened this country and damaged our security.

pinky, the two things that'll get ya are bombast and intellectual or (God Forbid with Glenn around) legal pretension.

Other than that, they can and do make allowances for anything around here. So don't worry.

Or do what I did, simply never look at your past letters, and pretend they don't exist. And deny, deny, deny. And then change your handle!