JayB

Which safeguards are you referring to? In the context of what I've read thus far - my answer is no, the modifications to FISA do not concern me, and I don't see a significant threat to our civil liberties or freedoms encompassed within them. If someone can find the specific passages that demonstrate why I should conclude otherwise, I hope someone will point them out. If the administration does not outline the powers that you are concerned that they are intent on abusing explicitly, then even if one assumes that they have both the intent and the means to do so, are you convinced that the said abuses, were they to occur would persist beyond the present administration? On what basis would the next Clinton administration carry forward the abuses that you are concerned will originate in this administration if they aren't supported by the actual text of the legislation? Finally, your claims here seem rather more constrained than the proclamations heralding the arrival of an oversight free surveilo-state. Do you really think that the language that you used to characterize this legislation in your original post is valid here, in light of the actual proposals that are on the table?

I thought is was sex.....or lack of. Thats why people have affairs. Or at least why men have affairs. Dude, women have just as many affairs as men. True, but for different reasons. I love it when suddenly a man pretends to understand women's motives. It makes for a good laugh. A riddle wrapped in a haze of emotional impulses inside a compulsion to chat endlessly about everyday inanities...

I agree. I presume that you are not exempting yourself from these charges. On my self-indulgent tourist escapades, nothing was more nauseating than the "I'm not a tourist, I'm a righteous and benevolent emissary of global understanding who's selflessly undertaken the task of righting the world's wrongs with my cultural astute and wholly altruistic choices in lodging, transport, and dining...etc" routine. I'm not sure that one can make a factual case that rich people who fly to isolated resorts and drink cocktails from coconuts on private beaches, or the hordes disgorged from cruise-ships are less beneficial for the countries they visit than the backpacker set. Speaking from someone else's experience living in Africa for a couple of years, the ideal visitor would: 1)Spend large amounts of money impulsively. 2)Shut-up immediately. 3)Go-home quickly.

"Juan's got an AM radio!"

Fair enough - and the fact that I choose to not be preoccupied/obsessed with this particular issue isn't because I'm a conservative yuppie - but feel free to continue with your stereotypes if it makes life more entertaining for you. From my personal standpoint I have a limited amount of emotional/intellectual bandwidth that I can spend as I like. If I wanted to get really wound up about big-brother, that would certainly consume a good bit of it. I personally don't believe that the potential civil rights abuses enabled by the program being discussed collectively rank that high in the grand scale of international human suffering. For example, my wife recently spent 2-weeks in Zambia working with AIDS orphans, and we are trying to figure out how we can do more to help from both a financial and advocacy standpoint now that a baby will keep us stateside for the immediate future. It doesn't take much bandwidth to stop rooting for the wrong side. Since Congress, with the full participation of the Democratic majority, is responsible for this legislation - which side is it that you are referring to here?

No, it's actually a major modification. Prior to the current legislated changes, there was judiciary oversight, complete with probable cause requirements etc.; now, citing executive privelege, the current administration claims the right to surveil those it deems as risks (tell me how they might establish this?), without the need to report ANY case specifics to any oversight entity, EVER. Only a quarterly report outlining "procedures" is required. (And to compare the un-monitered illegal unconstitutional collection of information on americans to the monitered collection of medical information within a format yet to be decided on seems, on the surface, to be nothing but a play on a rather naive and blithely dismissive reading of "left" and "right" political stereotyping). I was able to locate what appears to be the administration's case here: http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Wainstein092007.pdf A more concise summary of this case here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html which I'll post below. And the full text of the various versions of the legislation here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1927: I won't have time to read through the documents for a while, so perhaps you can assist me by identifying the specific passages that grant the administration the right to surveil everyone at all times with no oversight? Or are those powers outlined somewhere else? "For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary August 6, 2007 Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007 President Bush Signs Legislation Modernizing Foreign Intelligence Law To Better Protect America RSS Feed White House News Fact sheet In Focus: National Security "We know that information we have been able to acquire about foreign threats will help us detect and prevent attacks on our homeland. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has assured me that this bill gives him the most immediate tools he needs to defeat the intentions of our enemies. And so in signing this legislation today I am heartened to know that his critical work will be strengthened and we will be better armed to prevent attacks in the future." President George W. Bush, 8/5/07 The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas. * Changes In Technology Since 1978 Had The Effect Of Expanding The Scope Of FISA's Coverage To Include Intelligence Collection Efforts That Congress Excluded From The Law's Requirements. This unintended expansion of FISA's scope meant the government, in a significant number of cases, needed to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence information against a target located overseas. This created an unnecessary obstacle to our Intelligence Community's ability to gain real-time information about the intent of our enemies overseas and diverted scarce resources that would be better spent safeguarding the civil liberties of people in the United States, not foreign terrorists who wish to do us harm. * The Government Should Not Have To Obtain A Court Order To Conduct Surveillance On Foreign Intelligence Targets Located In Foreign Countries. This was not Congress' intent when it enacted FISA. As the Director of National Intelligence stated, continuing to operate under this outdated law meant our intelligence professionals were "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country." The Protect America Act Modernizes FISA In Four Important Ways 1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S. 2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. 3. The Act Provides For The FISA Court To Direct Third Parties To Assist The Intelligence Community In Its Collection Efforts. The Act permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct third parties to provide the information, facilities, and assistance necessary to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located overseas. 4. The Act Protects Third Parties From Private Lawsuits Arising From Assistance They Provide The Government. No cause of action may be brought in any court against any person for complying with a directive to provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition of foreign intelligence information. Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001." As for the left/right "play," that's not my intention at all, but it does seem odd that one can simultaneously argue for granting the government much broader powers in one arena with no consideration of the potential implications while constantly issuing forth jeremiads about the malign intent of the same government in another arena. Odder still that it can be undertaken with no explanation, no logical asterisk, and no awareness of the manifold logical contradictions inherent in such a position.

I agree with that, Jay, but over and over again you have refused to discuss specific shortcomings of a particular policy or proposed piece of litigation without resort to broad brushed attacks against naive liberals who wear birkenstocks. As I said: specific information would be useful here, but do you really think we should assume or even that we really have reason to hope that this Administration is acting in our national interest in how they conduct this "war on terror?" And Congress, too. The fact that something may have bipartisan support does not at all suggest that - in the case of overseeing intelligence gathering for example - a proposal is in anybody's interest except a bunch of Senators who want to tell the electorate that they are tough on terrorism. Airport security ring a bell? That's a strange charge to make, considering that the last time this came up I was one of the few participants to actually cite specific aspects of the legislation under consideration, who was sponsoring it, and what their implications would be. As for the trust question - I answered it above, but will repeat it here. Whether you think that Bush is the Devil incarnate or the political equivalent of the messiah is irrelevant here. Ditto for Congress. Hell, the framers of the constitution were operating under the explicit assumption that people are imperfect and corrupt and that those who have power will seek to abuse it and designed the entire structure of government on that basis - but in the end it was the content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than their personal trustworthiness or the personal feelings of the long-dead citizens of that era towards them that persisted and defined the nature of the government from the point of ratification onwards. To probe this question further, though, are you implying that if we feel as though the president, Congress, etc *do* have our best interests at heart that we could assume that the legislation that they pass will by definition be acting in our interest, or the national interest, and that no evaluation of the legislation on the basis of its actual content or merits is necessary? This all seems like a rather silly diversion.

You seem to be assuming that the bureaucrats will be operating under a different set of imperatives. The motive may be different, but what makes you think that the constraints imposed by the realities of the budget would liberate the bureaucrats from the necessity of rationing care?

In the case of nationalized health care, aren't the political bureaucrats in charge of the health care professionals?

If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the new FISA legislation has been constructed in consultation with, or co-sponsored by Democrats, so the matter of whether or not one thinks highly of or trusts the Bush administration seems less relevant than the actual content of the legislation and its legal/institutional ramifications. These, rather than a ghoualsh of partisan emoto-subjectivities, should constitute the substance of the discussion. One can judge whether or not Congress, in this particular case, is doing its job by evaluating the content of the legislation they pass. Again this, rather than whether on trusts Congress - whether that means the institution in general or the particular batch of legislators that inhabit the capitol at this point in time - should be the basis of the discussion. Ditto for the "general distrust" and whether or not "the theory that this benevolent administration has our best interest at heart and is fully loyal." Focus on the specific shortcomings of the particular piece of legislation and you have the basis of a rational discussion. Focus on emotional, highly-partisan nebulosities and you have the basis for an infinity of unconstructive paranoia.

Agreed. It's nice that you have that understanding, but just imagine if your wife insisted that you accompany her on trips to the mall, sat home and festered while you were out climbing instead of pursuing her own interests, etc? Scary-stuff. I've seen it. Look before you leap.

How about some specifics: -What mechanisms for review and oversight, and what checks and balances were in place in the FISA regulations that pertained to monitoring communications that either took place exclusively, or originated, overseas? -What specific provisions of the new legislation undermine or negate them, and in what fashion? -What specific consequences does this have for any law enforcement or surveillance activity the falls outside the purview of FISA?

Ditto for hypocrites... Never cracked open a guidebook or a perused a website/forum for information before setting out?

I'm always humored by these "by the numbers" people who don't have any flexibility in their thinking. We are under threat, and they seem intent on making this a discussion about our "civil liberties". I can't think of a single freedom of mine that has been taken away. Last time I checked, I could still do everything I was able to do before. It's not like they are putting a video camera in my home; it's just a microphone really, when you think about it. Plus, think about all the other criminal activity that they'll be able to put an end to. And we certainly don't need a judge to see the "evidence", before allowing the eaves-dropping. How can a judge possibly check the evidence on millions of phone calls? He can't! Plus, what if he is one of these "civil liberties" types that wants a lot of evidence? You know you have a good lead, a feeling, you know? He's not going to listen to your feelings. He's going to want facts, and we don't have time for that. FISA put way too many burdens on intelligence collection, binding it to constitutional priciples and protections (as if we could have both; another example of the lefty idealism). Isn't the actual legislation here a rather minor modification of FISA rules that pertain to the monitoring of either overseas communications and/or communications which originate with terror suspects overseas and terminate with US citizens? Add me to the list of people who find it odd that the same folks who deign themselves latter-day Paul Reveres ("The Neocons are Coming! The Neocons are coming!") with respect to civil liberties and overarching government power, seem blithely indifferent to the potential implications of transferring control over much more sensitive, personal, and vital information about themselves - and the power to determine what actions to take in response to this information - to the same government that they have been sounding the metaphorical alarm bells about for the past eight years. "I can't bear the thought of the government listening in on phone calls from terrorists that they place to associates in the US under modified FISA provisions, but I'm more than happy to hand the government all of my health care data, and put them in charge of approving or rejecting any treatment that I might need, and when and where I get it."

Heard a story on NPR a while back that delved into the divorce-rate stats a bit. Sounds like the divorce rate for better-off folks who went to college has actually been trending down since the early '90's, and the divorce rate for poor folks without degrees has been holding steady and/or increasing. Always thought that it was interesting that atheists/agnostics had the lowest divorce rate of any "faith" group. People that fall into this category may well marry at lower rates overall, and marry later in life, and the stats may not take these factors into accounts, but I still thought it was interesting, especially when held up alongside the stats for Baptist/Fundamentalist folks. Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24% Atheists, Agnostics 21% http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

You mean, when an individual suspected of engaging in or plotting terrorist actions makes a call, or sends an e-mail to Eric from overseas - would he object to the NSA using the authority granted by FISA and/or whatever statute the Democrats pass to intercept that communication? I assume that this is the "what" that you are referring to.

Fascist? FOAD. Quite the collection of random stalker/groupies that you've accumulated there. Must be kind of flattering, in a bizzare and disturbing way, to realize that there are folks who are glued to their monitors, fingers perched above their keyboards, waiting for a post of yours to respond to.

Might be a good place for folks to chime in with the mods they've used to make skiing in mountaineering boots suck less. I've heard of folks: -Using ski-boot liners in their mountaineering boots. -Using powerstraps with their mountaineering boots. -Sticking plastic calf-support thingies in their mountain boots. -inserting an eye-bolt into the front of their skis and attaching a calf-strap to the said eye-bolt. -Using some combination of the above. I've never done any of these mods, and if I was going to ski down a volcano, I'd just use AT-Boots on the way up, but I'd be interested in hearing which, if any of these mods folks have found to be effective.

Kind of makes me wonder how many officers are on the Bathroom Stall, uh...beat these days. Wouldn't necessarily be my first law-enforcement priority in a city with one of the highest murder rates per capita in the country, if not the world.

Probably South Boston. If you're in the U-District there's always the Knarr. Right next to PMS. Seemed like there was at least one slightly less-divey-but-not-fancy bar a couple of blocks south of The Knarr as well.

Word. Was hoping to ski the South Face in the spring after the snowpack consolidated, but I was always hungry for rock around that time and never got around to it. Did start up the Inwood Arete on the north side in the summer, but had to bail on account of lightning. That (the lightning) is the one thing that I kind of hated about the Rockies. Seems like at least half the time I got on anything more than a couple of pitches long it turned into a nerve-wracking race against the wrath-o-zeus.

North Ridge of Spearhead is indeed dope. Only quibble with the recs is I think you meant the East Ridge of Quandary for a ski descent, no?

The infinity of uncrowded granite in the South Platte and warm, south-facing limestone on Shelf Road both warrant an occasional trip south of I-70 as well. I also found that cross-referencing the hot-springs guide with the Roach/Dawson guidebooks was a worthwhile endeavor. Looking forward to the TR's.

JFK cCrovnNGdSg

Yup. I think I could give up all the rest of it pretty easily, as long as I had the right company.