Wanna guess what Tuesday's posting will be about?

I'm expecting lots of Cooperstown pics, including at least one hot dog. Maybe even some peanuts and cracker jacks.

"jeez." i kept saying as torre made his moves,"how many pitchers do they have down there?" there really isn't anything like yankee/red sox.

Torre was lucky they Yanks did not come back to tie. Bubba Crosby might have been pitching in the eleventh. Nobody wants that.

Orin Kerr legal analysis of the legality of the wiretaps. If phone companies are convicted of breaking the Stored Communications Act, they could owe $1000 to every customer. I bet Qwest customers are kicking themselves now! :-)

It has the optics of trolling through your neighbour's mailbox to see who the mail's from. You don't open the mail to see what's inside, but it's no more acceptable.

It's interesting to note that the paranoiacs south of the 49th are beginning to wonder if George will actuyally step down at the end of the term. He DOES appear to be consolidating his power in various and sundry ways.

I seem to think he will be shown the door by the Republicans quite warmly by Nov 2008, Gordo.

<blockquote>
It's interesting to note that the paranoiacs south of the 49th are beginning to wonder if George will actuyally step down at the end of the term. He DOES appear to be consolidating his power in various and sundry ways.
</blockquote>

Yes, they were saying that sort of stuff before the last election; they didn't do much about it though. When your politics gets to that state, it's probably time to step back, take a breather, have you sanity checked and perhaps read a real history book or two, covering subjects such as how real totalitarian governments act (here's how they deal with dissenters, for example), the powers of progressive European governments, and powers the US executive has previously taken during war time.

Europe's bad, David - hasn't anyone told you?

But there's great food and the women know how to take care of themselves. That forgives a lot.

Now <i>that</i> is why we get along, baby.

I've no trouble at all with the NSA accumulating phone records for data mining or Visa card records or what have you. Just so long as I am assured that only the NSA will be using the records and that they will only be looking for "terrorists" narrowly defined. It is a mark of the distrust Americans have for government in general and this administration in particular that they are rather sceptical about the bone fides of the NSA. After the Nixonian abuses of the CIA and FBI I can't say I blame them.

If the installation of a military man as head of the CIA weren't a shoo-in, I might agree with you, Alan. They can't stand up to him on something so basic as that, what makes you think they'll grow a backbone in the next 18 months?

Sorry, though I'm a big supporter of the GWOT, this is one of those areas that makes me go a little snakey. Internal phone calls should be treated differently external (cross border) phone calls. There's lots of interesting data that can be mined without the conversation and it's only a (short) matter of time where this will be used in the drug "war", tracking down "deadbeat dads" and all other sorts things that could be done other ways but it's "hard".

Furthermore, the President is co-equal to the other branches; and the other branches (helped) set out the limits by which phone companies can provide this data to the government (explicitly!). On his say so, companies cannot be compelled to give up data and if they do it voluntarily -- like they apparently did -- then they should have a big nasty bill coming their way.

On his say so, companies cannot be compelled to give up data and if they do it voluntarily -- like they apparently did -- then they should have a big nasty bill coming their way.

I agree.

(did I just say that?)

I'm inclined to be a little sceptical on the NSA myself (remembering the delights of Eschelon where the NSA had British, French and Canadian signals intelligence units do what it was legally prohibited from doing.) However, David, the powers of the three branches are co-equal in times of peace, in time of war the President trumps Congress.

On the other hand, what's the big deal? Call records are kept and, apparently, available for sale on the internet. I think it was the head of Sun Microsystems who pointed out that there was no such thing as privacy anymore.

Howver, if we follow up on last week and send all out emails in Morse code I suspect the NSA computers will simply melt into pools of butter.

I see nothing remotely controversial in what the NSA is reported to be doing. Frankly, I would be appalled if this were the limit of what they are up to (it isn't).

If the President is shown the door before November 2008 it is far more likely to be by a Republican Congress belatedly outraged at his refusal to defend the southern border than by a hypothetical renascent Democratic House. The notion he will be anything but retired (from the Presidency) by 2009 only shows the utter unseriousness of so much of his opposition. And the reason his entirely half-hearted offensive against the jihadis stills looks so good in comparison with the alternatives on offer. Though I still have some hope for a steel-spined Hilary Clinton.

flea, is that the Hilary who shares a house with the steel-spined ex-Prez and cigar smoker, Bill Clinton? I get the sense she only appears steel spined if you are a KosKid or Howdy Doody Dean. Being to the right of Barbara Streisand does not a warrior queen make.

Would Jay and Flea be upset if they passed over _recordings_ of all those conversations? This will be technically feasible very very soon (let's say 15 years).

The reason I say this is that I believe complete phone-# to phone-# records, with subscriber information, over time gives near a complete a picture about the person as the contents of the calls do.

It is perhaps an odd day that Mr. Flea is the most crime controllish <i>but</i> interesting to note, significantly, that we all make the distinction between call records and call recordings and are probably pretty much comfortable with that with some wiggle room for personality. I am impressed, gentlemen, and this gives great hope - even on anotherwise busy day - that when I win the NY mega millions you serve well as the core of our international operations.

I hereby park this link.

Re: link. Amazing what a chap will do, apparently, for a free ride in the Irish sense of that word.

Amazing what a chap will do, apparently,

For the amount of money he was making, I do a better job defending the homeland. And I'm only a programmer!

"Europe's bad, David - hasn't anyone told you?"
Well, not bad, per se, just not as good as us and our NOrthern Cousins. ;) And what is up with the Ducks' goalie? Outstanding! Even if it is from the lesser So. Cal team(sob, when will the Kings play for Lord Stanley's Cup ever again. Sob.).

It's either this(NSA flap) or another secretive plan(remember TIA?). They're going to do it. People I talk(ex-military types) to say it's necessary to avoid another 'failure to connect the dots' charge. We can either accept it and make it as transparent and with as much civilian over sight as effectiveness will allow, or they'll do it behind our backs(under any president. Don't forget how CLinto used the FBI improperly. Or LBJ either.).

The scenario is this: what if we had the relational data this would provide when they arrested Moussaoui?

It's a tough call. People want to give LEO all the tools they need to do the job effectively. That's what the WaPo poll found. But they also have misgivings about abuse of power.

And what is the individual who said that the Pres trumps COngress during war smoking? During martial law, maybe, but not during war. All three branches are fighting for more power. Not just the Executive Branch. Use of the COmmerce CLause by the SCOTUS to control what should be under the perview of local gov't(like drug policy, guns near schools, and a host of other things)? No, that's not a power grab at all now is it?

Can she be stopped? Absolutely. Hillary is not GOlda Meyer or The Iron Lady---she's not trusted on foreign affairs. She's really suited to be Speaker of the House or even Senate Majority leader. But Pres? Nope. She's much better on domestic policy---which is COngress' job. The Exec is supposed to be the foreign affairs focused part of gov't. She's steel spined when it comes to things like single payer health care(ptui! We don't want it down here!), but wet noodle when it comes to fighting for US national interests. She's admirable, but I don't want her as my Pres since she's so focused on domestic issues. There's got to be a democrat that is foreign affairs focused, maybe even female, but Hillary ain't that candidate.

"The reason I say this is that I believe complete phone-# to phone-# records, with subscriber information, over time gives near a complete a picture about the person as the contents of the calls do." With so much of phone service going thru digital switch boards I wouldn't be surprised if ti wasn't capable now. If internet phone service becomes popular it'll become even more doable. If it's critical that nobody read it but the adressee, send it snail mail.

Not smoking anything at all....puts me to sleep. For a rather long time Presidents have asserted that they have considerable authority per Article 2 of the Constitution as the "Commander in Chief" of American forces during both declared and undeclared wars. (The declaration of war being a Congressional Perogative.) It is pretty clear that the President has the authority and the responsibility to run the armed services and the intelligence establishment. Congress is limited to the aptly named "oversight" and the President's obligations seem limited to keeping selected Congressmen and Senators informed of his actions.

Put it another way: it is well within the authority of the President to invade small countries, sell arms to whomever, tap international phone calls and generally behave like a rogue elephant/saviour of western civilization so long as he can colour his actions with an appeal to his obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States. If Congress does not like this behaviour it can a) cut off funding, b) impeach the President, c) refuse to confirm his appointments, d)throw a tantrum (which seems to be the current strategy).

I am a yellow dog democrat(will vote for any democratic candidate, even an old yellow dog). However, I am also practical, and a realist. Looking back at Kerry: he was such an easy target to paint with the 'liberal' brush, coming from Mass., which had just legislated same sex marriage. Back to Gore: there is a large and unmentioned part of the population from Alabama to Nevada and beyond that would NEVER vote for a ticket with a Jew on it. Dems can't keep throwing these packages at the electorate, it guarentees failure. The American public seems easily swayed by little things, and big things, which appear unusual or controversial, which makes it easy for people like Bush and a big pocketbook to win. Ditto Hilary. Many people may like her, but the majority of Americans don't like her, or simply wouldn't vote for a woman. She may do her best work right where she is, in a state that easily supports her. Dems gotta choose a midwestern or southern squeaky clean white guy with a lot of charm and charisma. That's the formula right there.

Bwah? Is this what you've come up with to explain the last 6 years? That people incorrectly perceived Kerry as a "liberal" and that dem rednecks hate dem Jews?

As opposed to, say, Kerry was a flip-flopper of no accomplishment or conviction who faked his way out of Vietnam and who turned all-but traitor to his country afterwards; or that Gore was a boring stuffed shirt concerned with issues only of interests to upper-middle class and rich people living in highly urbanized areas.

You got it David, and I stand by it. Both of them lost on superficial reasons. I don't think people liked Kerry's wife either. "Liberal" as four letter word and rednecks voting their closed minds. You and I are on very different sides of the fence, and I don't expect you to agree.

David, it is not that Kerry flipped or flopped it is that the label stuck even if it was meaningless. [Consider how the beloved leader of our new rural overlords and all the actual flip floppery but no one cares.] I think Gary has it right quite right that Kerry was labellable regardless of the label or the substance of the labelling. He was the opposite of teflon. Plus he took that inordinate stance on his Vietnam record and allowed himself to be measured by that rather than the present, and subject himself to the nuttiness of those who looked behind medals and turned a blind eye to Bush and Cheney's far less honourable pasts. And when I say the substance was not the important thing he may well have lacked substance but that was not the critical thing. He was placed on a certain track of appearances, partly by his own doing, then was sent down that path. And while Gore was/is truly a boring person, that does not take away from the fact that some significant portion of the people will still not vote for women, blacks, jews, Newfoundlanders, gays or red heads.

You're missing half my point: I don't expect you to agree with me. However, when I lose at something, I try to put myself in the mind of the other person/party to understand their reasons for winning or disagreeing with me. I try not just to make stuff up to make myself feel better (or at least, not for too long).

Alan: or Southerners, or people who didn't go to the right schools, or who aren't "our sort of people", or don't have the right dialect/accent, ...

Now gentlemen, I have Trailer Park Boys season 5 to attend to.

Yes, that is it David. Swedes and Norwegians mock each other. Remember that sad 80s movie <i>Pelle the Conqueror</i> about poor Danes in Sweden or Swedes in Denmark circa 1900? People have a propensity to prejudice that is alarmingly vibrant.<p>And I think you and Gary are both right and wrong. There is never a winning or losing of a debate as mostly there is a description of two-sides of the same coin that co-exists. The rest of the time there is usually a fact in error independent of the debaters.

John Kerry was a serious strategic error by the Democrats. Rather than adopting a candidate that who would stand for the principles of their party, they created a stereotypical middle-american voter in their collective minds (i.e. the voter who is uneducated semi-stupid semi-redneck gun-loving war-hero-worshipping) and then found a candidate that they thought would appeal to that stereotype.

That is plausible.

Nicely put, David. Well said and I agree to an extent, and I also like how Alan says that it is up to 2 sides to describe their points.
Again, though, Hillary doesn't have a chance, for many reasons, superficial and not superficial, no matter what she does or does NOT stand for. What worries me is that some people are blind to this, and push her to the front of the primary pack. It seems republicans love the idea, knowing full well that they could put up a stuffed sock monkey toy for president, and it would win paws down.

Fun reading on King Flipfloperovi's 100 days of open less PMO centred government.