Pangloss

That they're idle speculation. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the chief litigator for the ACLU, for crying out loud. Steven Bryer was the assistant special prosecutor for Watergate! Where was the Republican filibuster for these nominees? Where was the pounding-the-podium outrage and fear-mongering couched as "lingering doubt" and "troubling concern"? (Mind you, I happen to think both of those appointments were fine, for exactly the same reason that Alito was fine.) I'm not saying that Democrats are aggregately more partisan than Republicans. What I'm saying is that this represents a dangerous (and all too typical) escalation in the political landscape. Republicans will probably pull the same nonsense with Hillary Clinton's first nominee, and I'll be just as ready to call them on it when they do.

Nonsense. You implied that we wouldn't want to monitor them, and I'm pointing out why we would. That's it. I said nothing about MORE monitoring, and I object to your continued obfuscation and spin. You owe me an acknolwedgement that I have made my prima facie case. You don't have to agree with it, but if you're a reasonable person you'll at least acknolwedge it.

I've explained this in sufficient detail. Soldiers work with other soldiers secure areas. They stand on the front line alongside other soldiers in battle. They guard VIPs and diplomats, and they guard each other. We already had one case of a soldier blowing himself up in anger during the build-up to the Iraq war. Not to mention the case of the Filipino spy in the White House who was a former US soldier. I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're missing here. Again I state my case:

Well as long as we're throwing double-negatives around, how about some unequivocal evidence that he IS a conservative ideologue? How about some objection OTHER than the fact that he was nominated by George W. Bush? Every single objection I've seen was obviated by the facts. All of the legal opinion issues were addressed by the American Bar Association in a bipartisan manner, and their recommendation speaks volumes. On any reasonable, non-partisan playing field, there can be no objection to this nominee.

I certainly agree with this, but I would just point out that Clinton's nominees were not dealt with in the fashion that Bush's nominees have been. Even Illinois Democratic Senator Barrack Obama thinks Senate Democrats have done poorly in this area, relying too much on "parliamentary measures" that are not supported by the American people. Obviously he's not the only one who thinks so, because TWENTY SENATE DEMOCRATS voted to stop the Alito filibuster! That is a leadership defeat of the highest order. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the real reason why Kennedy is so outraged. Poor John Kerry, flying all the way back from his vacation in the Alps for nothing.

I think they are. As you say, Kennedy essentially accuses Alito of having secret ideological bias. But since he has no evidence to that effect, or evidence that is equally offset by counter-evidence, he's left with only the conclusion that Alito MUST be those things BECAUSE he was nominated by a Republican president. The American Bar Association certainly didn't think so, and they have no ideological axe to grind. But these Senators, who DO have an ideological axe to grind, if they raise an objection, it's somehow more valid and not ideological? Riiiight.

I see no evidence of fear that Clinton's appointees might have misrepresented themselves, but they were every bit as well coached and prepared. No, this is clearly an ideological matter for Senate Democrats. I don't see how it could be viewed any other way.

I said vulnerability, not threat. Members of the armed forces are working behind the lines in "green zones" and directly with fellow soldiers and could, in theory, cause a major disruption at a critical moment. Therefore they represent an obvious potential vulnerability, and would have to be monitored with at least the same level of circumspection you would give to any other phone call in or out of that country. I have no information to this regard, but I suggest that this is currently the case. So to reinterate my point: Hence my earlier reply.

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent? Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

Uh, yeah, we definitely want the NSA refraining from monitoring people based on emotional objections....

Some of Kennedy's rantings yesterday were pathetic. He wasn't upset that Alito didn't "state his positions" -- he's upset that Alito isn't progressive. Senate Democrats have behaved atrociously in this affair -- even Lieberman voted no! Bush did exactly what the center of American politics asked him to do -- nominate conservatives who were capable of objective reasoning -- and he even risked the loss of his base of support in doing so. The nominees were (with one exception) gutsy and appropriate. Even worse, it suggests to me that the kind of nominess we could expect to see under a President Clinton II would be ideological in nature, because of a perceived need to "balance those awful Bush nominees". This has been the strongest argument yet for this moderate to vote Republican in 2008.

I may have commented on this in another thread (forgive me), but I saw an interesting news story the other day about how EM is contributing massive bumps to the 401ks and pension funds of millions of Americans. I've also said here many times that oil prices are a commidity item. EM doesn't set them -- the market does. And everyone basically pays the same price (except the producing nations). I think a valid question has arisen over this past year about inflated production margins. Transportation, refining, and so forth. But when you look at the bottom line, EM's profit margin (~$36 bill on $360 bill sales) is roughly ten percent, which is really not out of line. It's bigger than Wal-Mart's (4%?) but only slightly higher than the Fortune 500 average (typically 7%). Some industries (health insurance anyone?) would even call that a bad year.

And just to add insult to injury, on Friday ExxonMobil asked for a $5 billion reduction in damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill case in Alaska. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257410_valdez28.html?source=rss

Nobody was forced to go to the grocery store this morning either. I don't mean to sound intractible, though. It may not be possible to be 100% consistent about this at all times. I just think it's important to do our best to respect and empower parental boundaries for these critical times in child development. Aside from that, I do think parents have to understand that there are always going to be situations beyond their control, and raise their kids accordingly.

I've passed this on to the Admins. Thanks!

Maybe more to the point, a lot of the founding fathers might have disagreed with Franklin on this issue. It's also interesting that a new ABC News poll showed the majority of Americans agreeing with the monitoring. It's also notable that most members Democrats seem to agree with the monitoring as well. It's mainly the hardcore left that's opposed. I think it's important to draw a distinction between the issue of monitoring and the issue of whether the White House broke the law. It is NOT inappropropriate or contradictory or hypocritical for the opposition part to agree with the decision to monitor and disagree with the process that was used. In fact it's necessary for any opposition party to be able to make that distinction in order for our government to function.

If we don't allow people to parade about naked in public (forcing them into "colonies"), then why would it be any different for public web sites or other public venues? It happen to not agree with any of those restrictions myself (WTF do I care how people choose to clothe themselves), but if you're going to make a compromise like that, you might as well be consistent about it. The compromise itself doesn't bother me, btw. Although I may not care about that issue myself, I have a problem with society being hypocritical with regard to asking parents to raise their children how they see fit, but then pulling the rug out from under them constantly by shoving all manner of things in their children's faces and then saying "well you're just being overprotective" when they complain. Not all children are approaching the end of puberty and ready to face the real world, but that's the way some people (like video game enthusiasts) talk about them.

Hrm.... I don't see it, but I'm not the most observant person in the world. I'll pass it along to the admins.

Yup, that's a distinct possibility (and well put). I also happen to think that the resolution of the question that you and I have just framed, however it ends up being resolved, will go down in the history books as the most central and pivotal geopolitical situation of the 21st century. I think one phrase you used sums it up really well: "China's rulers have a chance".

Jim is that a board feature you're referring to there? I didn't realize this board had a spell checker built in but if you're having problems with it please let me know and I'll pass it along to an admin. Thanks.

Yah I think we had some interesting discussions over those months leading up to the Presidential election. Between those discussions and some discussions I had elsewhere (both online and off), I ended up changing my mind from Bush to Kerry. So at the very least there was at least SOME impact from the debates here. (grin)

Can't agree with you there either.

(shrug) I surely can't fault the sentiment.