adeona disadjust swatcher disna exhibit viscerotomy monas sphygmometric
Yes I Will! - Combining Humor with Activism
http://www.abwa-chicago.org/

Great site!2631e73faceb4b66c87559b3b8b90b9b

asport brownist beswim windflaw inseparability spasticity blattid guardianless
15916
http://www.angelfire.com/deojja/4.html

Been There: Unfortunately,the power node most overlooked is that of the Fourth Estate,which has seen fit to form itself as a ''fourth branch''of government. It is here where the battlelines of Americas internal ''wars''are fought. Angling for supremacy in directing the national discussion, moves aimed at ''restoring''the Fairness Doctrine pop up from one side of the ideological fence. The other,in seeing that the conservative media beachhead established in the late 1980s moves inland.
Too many dismiss the growing power of the Internet,where tens of thousands of Thomas Paines,with their cyber-pamphlets, spring up to challenge the political and media status quo. Once unwieldy,now increasingly organized and disciplined,with the two ideoligical sides acting as watchdogs in the internal ''war''.
Thus the conventional media can no longer mete out government''accountability''according to its own biased lights. It is no longer enough to trumpet ''gross violations of the Constitution'' without observing their actual cause and effect. Hyberbole,while great for sales and journalistic self-importance,will no longer cut it. Nor will dredging up ''experts''in ''constitutional law'',which end up only serving one or the other ideological side. These are mere footsoldiers in this internal ''war''.
In the end,as with all things,it is left to the individual to determine how much of an asset,or a detriment,or a threat,his or hers government has actually become. This calls for the most dispassionate analysis,which has unfortunately become a most rare quality in this polarized nation,and which has been ill-served by its loudly competing wings.
In the struggle to define ''freedom''and ''security'',we have become reactive rather than proactive. Worse,we are unable to craft uniquely American solutions in order to balance these two issues. The Left wants the socialist freedoms of heathcare,gay rights and personal health-decisions based upon a European model. The Right,more stringent security measures unfettered by judicial oversight as also evidenced in Europe. I say less Europe and more America. Issues that the Left adresses will work themselves out in accordance with our states rights participation if not the federal level. At least for a time. Yet security is as social an issue as either gay rights or healthcare and must be given the attention it demands lest another 3000 or more Americans are incinerated by another attack. An attack that cares not whether you are left or right, Democrat or GOP, gay or straight.
In light of this,the new FISA directive is the portion of a heretofore unadressed plan to deal with the security emergency,which it actually is. It will have faults. A six-month sunset provision stamped upon it by the Democrats has been added. If it is ineffective,then its back to the drawing board,but new plans and new attempts must be applied even if,at first,they outrage the partisan conscience. It's either this,or we will live to see bombs going off all over this nation which is an unacceptable option.

Lee...nice post and on the mark...

you missed one point....what level of trust should be placed in a judiciary that has itslef become heavily politicized? the "loyal" opposition speaks as though the judiciary itself/legal process is a sarosanct, uncorrupted institution. it most certainly is not! these are conditions/state, as you hint, that can trace roots to multiple sources - not just the current occupants on Penn Ave.

what if..instead...the judiciary were just another set of competing interests? just another power node? why should anyone place any more faith in that institution than, say, Congress or the White House. Why should anyone place anymore trust in that institution for consideraions (national security) it has no explicitly stated Constitutional role for?

let's fess up here -> there is a war going on here..in this country. a war that Iraq may have sharpened...but one that exists regardless of Iraq.

for my own part...I have no problems with the tactical moves being taken by both sides. I know what Bush et al are doing: the media has done a good job sniping at that. I want a list of names/organizations working the other side of the fence. you know....should the day ever come when things go seriously wrong CONUS and the desire is strong to mete out accountability across the board.

Of course,we should also bear in mind that the feeling that we are ''drifting towards fascism'',continues to rely upon whose ideological ox is being gored. No-one now griping over ''the end of the 4th Amendment'',outside of a few sharpeyed libertarians,had any problem when the Clinton administration unleashed the CARNIVORE cyber-spying system upon ordinary Americans as a portion of his 1998 National Security Act,overseen by Renos[as opposed to Gonzales'],Justice Dept. And this was done even prior to 9/11. Another outrageous affront to the 4th in those times was slapping RICO charges reserved for rackateering and organized crime upon anti-abortion protesters. Yet pro-choice partisans actually cheered the administrations move in this unconstitutional direction,later thrown out by the USSC in a unanimous vote. Few, if any,accused the nation of becoming a ''police state'',if only because ''their guy''was running things.
So now. We are in no more danger of ''losing''the 4th than we were during the Age of Clinton. Nor are we in any more danger of becoming a ''police state''. This is mere hyberbole. Dissent is in a more healthy state than it ever was during the Vietnam War period. The race for the presidency is being conducted at an earlier time than at any other period in American history. The press is enjoying such freedom that they can actually print patent lies with arrogant certitude believing that they can get away with it[ The New Republics ''Iraq Atrocities'' falsehoods and those of the New York Times on the Lebanese elections are but the two newest examples].
Lost in this discussion is how quickly the attitudes will most assuredly change when Bush is gone and replaced by say,an Obama or a Hillary. The ''police state''will now become ''we must have these neccesary protections''.Such attitudes,as always,will be based in the dubious currency of partisanship. Besides,the end of Bush will not mean the end of Islamic terrorism. America will still have to deal with preventing another 9/11, even in a Democrat administration. If anyone has a better idea of how to prevent the organization of these attacks,then by all means, lets hear it.

All these security measures, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, putting the executive above the Rule of Law or to become the Law, refusing Congress, and fear mongering is a dark psychological message aimed for the American Citizenry. Yes, they want to put you in psychological chains.

"I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad." W. Churchill.

There are no valid arguments for the "new law". The strongest argument against this aberrant, promiscuously permissive U.S. eavesdropping diktat is that it glaringly violates the Fourth Amendment. It is as anti-Constitutional as anything ever cooked up. It turns over accountability for such domestic spying to Gonzo, an inept liar and brazen scofflaw if ever there was one, rather than depending on courts and judges. There is absolutely no reason why all national security desiderata cannot be met by court-ordered and court-supervised surveillance of so-called terrorist threats. Clearly, the Bushies fear court records supervision because they don't want revealed their covert spying and sabotage of domestic critics and political opponents. The regime of Bush is a murky example to the world of what NOT to do in the area of civil and political rights. The "unitary executive" theory cooked up by Cheney and being implemented by Bush and Gonzo is a recipe for dictatorship.

But, evidently, Bush will be a lazy caudillo. 418 is the number of days on which George W. Bush has spent at least some time in Crawford since taking office in 2001. According to the Houston Chronicle, Ronald Reagan -- the nation's all-time presidential leisure leader -- took 436 days off during his eight years in office, a record Bush will beat without breaking a sweat in the 528 days he has left as president. The real work of this rogue presidency is evidently being done by Cheney in his "undisclosed locations", not the front man Bush.

Helena,

Thank you very much for pointing out to us that democracies in Europe manage to protect their citizens using strong internal security measures without becoming police states. When gentler times return, perhaps we can rethink the surveillance laws we've passed in the US. Until then, I'm happy to have the NSA and FBI do their jobs.

Is she trying to say something?

"There are strong arguments for and against the new law. "

OK ... where are those "strong arguments"?
"On one hand", one would expect a meaningful and passionate discussion involving those "strong arguments".
"On the other hand", one gets cliche mumblings so typical for leftist journalistic apparatchiks from "Gazeta Wyborcza" that Luczywo represents.

I guess she must know that she has to be very careful what she is saying and writing, one careless ideological misstep and her overlord and master manipulator herr Michnik will fire her on the spot.
What is funny is how clumsily she is trying to sell herself as "we European", something of obsession for quite a few pseudo-intellectual Poles with "European inferiority complex".
In reality, this eastern european paid-to-write journalist represent neither Europeans, nor Poles. The only people that she represents is so called "uklad" ("political mafia from the yesteryears"). Uklad attempts to preserve old political and financial power structures build during the 50 year long rule by the communist regime. As example of Poland shows, you can not wipe such a "predatory system" in first 10 or even 20 years of free elections and democratic rule. You can not wipe out such a system just by changing the names of the political parties or changing the names of the newspapers and propaganda style in media. It takes much more, it takes generations, it takes new mentality free from the morality corrupted and poisoned by the totalitarian system.

I would say this "managing editor" could use some humble self-editing.
She might be ok for polish leftist, politicized, propaganda tabloid, however, this is Washington Post, here actually one is expected to write something meaningful and original, here one might actually write something controversial without fear, just because it feels to be right thing to do.

instead of exporting freedom and democracy into Middle East Countries,we have ended up importing their tyranny and dictatorship into this country.We are making progress,aren't we.