A double F.U. FISA Cave

I'm glad that progressives blocked Steny Hoyer's assault on the first amendment for a couple of days, but they didn't get the leadership to compromise (unless the draft bill was even worse).

Key point "it would require a court order when the government is seeking communications of a person inside the United States, but only if that person is the target" that is, they can only spy on you people in the USA* if they claim they are interested in the person you are talking to or e-mailing. Wow.

Oh also more of the F.U. approach to FISA. The August mega cave was just for six months. Now Congress will take itself out but require unfortunate FISA judges to decide whether to grant a blanket suspension of FISA for US to overseas communications for two F.U.s at a time.

I really honestly believe that US Democracy will survive the Democrats. I don't know why I am confident, but I am.

* I live in Italy. No US law prevents the NSA from spying on me. The theoretically sovereign Italian Republic could protect me, but they caved decades ago. This isn't about me, its about my mom. Since August it has been legal for the NSA to listen in when she calls me (so long as I am the target).

Taking Advantage of Medicare Advantage Accounts

As part of the [subsidize insurance companies] I mean the medicare prescription drug benefit bill, Republicans allowed firms to compete with medicare with fee for service medicare advantage accounts (previously they could only compete with HMO accounts). The cost of medicare advantage to the treasury is about six billion a year (roughly equal to total compensation of all fortune 500 CEOs put together).

Unsurprisingly, unscrupulous insurance salesmen have acted like insurance salesmen in the scramble for the cash.

Kathleen Healey, a lawyer at the Alabama Department of Senior Services, said: “Despite the prohibition of door-to-door marketing, agents arrive on residents’ doorsteps stating that the president sent them, or that they represent Medicare. Some telemarketers insist they are calling from Medicare, and they tell beneficiaries that they will lose their Medicare if they do not sign up for the telemarketer’s plan.”

David A. Lipschutz, a lawyer at California Health Advocates, a nonprofit group,
explains

“Every enrollee in a private Medicare plan is a potential source of substantial profits,” Mr. Lipschutz said.

Doh. It's time to close the spigot. Republicans will not be eager to filibuster after some hearings following up on the article by ROBERT PEAR

All the ducks in a row

The White House illegally stopped secure archiving of e-mails because they switched to microsoftware

The National Security Archive and CREW lawsuits paint a picture of a White House that gave low priority to compliance with its archival duties under the law. The research institute alleges that the Executive Office of the President abandoned the automated record management system (ARMS) built by the previous administration to securely archive e-mails in 2002, never implementing another system for that purpose. The time period for the abandonment of the legacy archival system coincides with the Executive Office of the President's switch from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange and Outlook, referred to by White House Press Secretary Dana Perino in an April 13 press briefing.

"In 2002, they abandoned Lotus Notes, went to Microsoft Outlook, abandoned ARMS, but never put in a new electronic records management system. So I'm told they just dumped e-mail on servers. This meant that anybody with access to the servers could potentially dump data and delete documents," said Weismann.

"Each agency of the EOP's records are commingled. It's all just a dump. How much is missing? I think 5 million is the low end of what's missing."

via Sadly no again

but this is the funniest post over there

Why, Pastor Swank? Why dost thou persecuteth me?

Greasy Giuliani Slips Through Every Tight Hole
J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Is this Swank guy for real ? It would be very embarrassing to make fun of, say General J C Christian.

The Pantomime Horse of the Stupidocalypse

Echo chamber er er

Over at Sadl No Gavin M has some fun with Johah Goldberg.

Goldberg claimed that "that conservatives don’t actually question the patriotism of liberals". Huh ? When called on it, he claimed that Democrats do it too. In one example, he accuses John Kerry of questioning patriotism and poor rhyming when Kerry said "creed of greed".

Gavin M argues that Goldberg got all of his examples from an article b Morton Kondracke

Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.), when he was a candidate, said that Bush’s Iraq policy was “anti-patriotic at the core.” Last September, Kerry said that Bush “lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends” and that it was “unpatriotic” for Bush’s “friends” (i.e., corporate executives) to move jobs offshore. It was a regular staple of retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s campaign to say that Bush’s policies were “not patriotic.”

Howard Dean, when he was a candidate, charged that Ashcroft “is no patriot. He’s a direct descendant of Joseph McCarthy.”

Sure looks that way. Note that Kondracke didn't claim that Kerry claimed that Bush was unpatriotic, but that's just a detail. Kondracke did accuse Kerry of poor grammer as "he and his friends" should be "himself and his friends".


googling

"creed of greed" AND Kerry shows that Kerry is indeed guilty of a silly rhyme but there is no evidence of the grammer booboo [or the accusation of unpatriotism based on little evidence alleged by Goldberg].

Gavin googled the whole phrase and found that, surprise surprise, Fred Barnes writes by cutting a pasting without attribution or checking quotes.

The repetition of the grammar error shows this. Thus " The Last Refuge of the Democrats " was cowritten by Barnes and Kondracke [although Barnes didn't share credit for the misquotation]. Brad DeLong might call the beastie who wrote that article the pantomime horse of the Stupidocalypse.

Sad to say, Kaus and Krauthammer seem to make up their own inaccurate quotes.

Willard [Mitt] Romney explains how the market system works

He opposes the expansion of SCHIP [subsidised health insurance for children in families which make less than $ 6O,OOO for a family of 4] noting that some of the new recipients currently have health insurance

Mr. Romney told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that the proposed expansion was wasteful duplication.

“Can you imagine doing something like that in your enterprise, saying we want to get a new customer, so we’re going to lower the price to get this new account by 10 percent but then we’re going to go to all of our old customers and all give them 10 percent off too?” Mr. Romney said.

That is, in the private sector firms can manage perfect price discrimination and never sell an thing for less than the maximum a consumer is willing to pa. Charging an one less than their reservation price is proof of public sector inefficiency

This man made money in the private sector. He can't be that dumb. He is lying.

Paul has more links but I have more n's

I am currently suffering from acute link envy as I find m self [at best] the third most important Waldman* on the web.

Paul Waldman hates Iowa and got links from Atrios, Kos, Yglesias and Kevin Drum

aaaaarrrrg . Also Kagro X is named David Waldman.

I hate Iowa more than anyone and no one cares.

It's not as bad as it seems

Google He who knows not and knows not that he know not.....

and get sent straight here !

I am not the world's leading sophomoric buffoon [but I'm working on it]

Not only a crime a mistake

The fact that the USA decided to emulate the ussr in it's approach to torture should remain shocking. The guilt must be punished and there are hundreds of them [I was just following orders is no excuse when the orders are clearly criminal]. I was most surprised however b the astounding incompetence of our Mayberry Torquemadas

Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed’s statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.’s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed’s background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison.

So the absolute rule that experts are not to be trusted is more important than something which is more important than all moral principles.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

not a nightmare read all about it in toda's Times.

Wow

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrow that he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to several informed sources, a decision that further complicates an already difficult playing field for Republicans next November.

An open seat in deep purple New Mexico ! Brings the score to three high prob Dem pickups [Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire] a toss up in New Mexico and definite chances in Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska and Alaska [Stevens is so crooked the he is vulnerable]. The Republicans have some chance in Louisiana because Katrina drove out much of the Dem vote and South Dakota.

forty Republicans [not enough to filibuster] is possible. Of course on Ira* they have Lieberman.

Wow

Iraq invasion advocate Jeffrey Goldberg really did get a pony ?

Golberg wrote

The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

and the result ? Ponies !

David Bradley had been trying to lure Jeffrey Goldberg to the Atlantic for more than two years.

Bradley, the magazine's owner, wrote flattering letters. He courted Goldberg at a McDonald's on Wisconsin Avenue. He proffered a hefty signing bonus. And when the New Yorker's Washington correspondent finally seemed receptive to making the move, Bradley sent in the ponies.

"He's incredibly persistent and makes you feel like you're God's gift to journalism," says Goldberg, who had turned Bradley down once before. But that was before the horses showed up at his home to entertain his children.

And I thought all this "pony plan" and "finding a pony" was snark. How naive.

all shamelessly stolen from A Tiny Revolution

Less Horrible News from Iraq

The number of civilian casualties in Iraq was much lower in September than in August.
Kevin Drum has a nice graph.


I think the dramatic decline in deaths from August to September could have been forecast (although checking my blog I see I didn't do so). This sounds negative, but I mean that there have been 60 less awful days in the past two months. The (honest) August numbers include the estimated 572 deaths from bombings in Qahtaniya on August 14 (the victims were Yazidi). This was an immense catastrophe and monstrous crime, but it could have happened on any day for years. It was reasonable to guess that such a massacre would not occur in September. That would imply that fewer people would be killed per day in September than in June and July (as fewer will killed in August except August 14).

I think the bizarre numbers presented by Petraeus must have been calculated by excluding the August 14 deaths in Qahtaniya. It might be reasonable to look at deaths other than those when trying to forecast, but just pretending they didn't happen is still perjury in my book.

Still, the important point is that the good news is spread over 60 of 61 days not just 30 days which is ... still much less important than the political stalemate.

A the Return of the Killian Memos


Dan Rather has sued CBS for wrongful dismissal. He claims, among other more interesting things that the Killian memos shown on 60 minutes II which I have been calling "the forged Killian memo" for years, are authentic. The other things are more interesting. He claims that CBS tried to bury the Abu Ghraib story, that the substance of his accusations against Bush is correct, and that CBS hired a private investigator and ignored his conclusions that "after following all the leads given to him by Ms. Mapes, he [Rigler] was of the opinion that the Killian Documents were most likely authentic, and that the underlying story was certainly accurate." All this is a bit more important than the memos themselves.

To me, the unimportance of the memos in the case against Bush is the strongest argument against Rather and Mary Mapes (the "producer" who did the actual reporting).

I wrote at the time

Saturday, September 11, 2004


Alleged Killian memos II

The debate about whether the alleged Killian memos are forgeries has its delights. Every geek dreams of the day in which fonts, superscripts, proportional spacing and kerning make the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. Well not quite every geek. I consider myself a geek and I just learned what kerning is. Also the thought of total humiliation of George W Bush, Dan Rather or (most likely) both, must delight all right thinking people.

Sad to say the debate is very very irrelevant. [snip]

In my more paranoid moments, I imagine that Karl Rove typed the memos using microsoft word then signed them James Killian with a signature that doesn't match Killian's [OK so I'm totally paranoid now] He must have known that another round of Bush and the TANG was coming after the swift boat vets smear. This way, the press is distracted from the fact (noted by the Boston Globe) that Bush ignored his commitment to find a national guard post in Massachusetts when he was at Harvard BS, that the guy who got him the post in the TANG admitted doing so under oath etc etc etc.

[snip]

the alleged memos are not the first documents which suggest that Bush disobeyed a direct order. Back on St Valentime's day, Mark Kleiman noted that The Democratic Veteran linked to the order grounding Bush and James R Bath (you know Bush's link to the Bin Laden family) as posted by Martin at coldfeet@cis.net who I believe is a hero farmer in Iowa.

This order from the General Francis Greenlief (chief natinal guard bureau) grounds Bush and orders "Off will comply with para 2-10 AFM, 35-13." This is an order from a major general. It is written in militareese. What exactly does para 2-10 AFM, 35-13 require ? The most reasonable guess is that it is an order to take a flight physical. This would mean that there is uncontested proof that Bush disobeyed a direct order. However, no one has replied to Kleiman's request for a 1972 Air Force Manual, so we don't know. The manual must be an archived document, so it seems to me that it would make more sense to look it up than to argue about kerns and superscripts.

So at the time it was clear to someone who had been following the issue that the controversial memos added essentially nothing to what was known about George Bush's long past misconduct. There was no reason to go with them at all and certainly no reason to present them without checking with people like Killian's secretary.

Rather and Mapes demonstrate that they haven't gotten in by continuing to argue that the memos are authentic.

Mapes' argument was that the Killian documents "meshed" with the facts in precise and nuanced ways. "The Killian memos, when married to the official documents, fit like a glove," she wrote. "There is not a date, or a name, or an action out of place. Nor does the content of the Killian memos differ in any way from the information that has come out after our story ... In order to conclude that the documents are forged or utterly unreliable, two questions must be answered: 1) how could anyone have forged such pristinely accurate information; and 2) why would anyone have taken such great pains to forge the truth?

OK I have a couple of answers Ms Mapes. 2) Rove forged the truth hoping that someone would fall for the forgery and the ensuing controversy would convince people that Bush was never AWOL and the accusations against him are false. This is exactly what happened, so, while such a scheme would be optimistic it wouldn't be insane. 1a) the facts in the memos, including facts not yet in the public record, are accurate because Bush was in so much trouble he remembers even through the haze of alchohol and we all know what else (cough cocaine cough). or 1b) the official information which only later became public was known to the people in the Bush administration who have favored access to Bush's TANG records.

In brief you were punked. Now is the forged by the Bush team hypothesis paranoid ? I actually don't think so. First Mapes' questions are otherwise hard to answer. Second it explains why a well connected freeper challenged the authenticity of the documents while the 60 minutes II stopwatch was still ticking. It is my current working hypothesis.

A Daily Howler Howler

Somerby is good, but his eagerness to attack sometimes causes him to over reach. Here http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081507.shtml he praises and criticizes Matt Yglesias who is guilty of working for The Atlantic and, allegedly, insufficiently dogged in pursuing Whiz gate

Due to this unexplained “hack gap,” pseudo-issues tend to decide our elections. We’ve been discussing such issues forever. But guess what? As we continue, we learn that Matt doesn’t want to waste his time on these decisive pseudo-issues. Darlings, the lovely shall be choosers! Matt would rather spend his time working on things that he finds “interesting.” The gentleman wants an “appealing” way to spend his valuable time:

YGLESIAS (continuing directly): As a writer, though, I'd rather spend my time writing about things that I think are important or at least interesting. Harping away on haircuts, Bykofsky's appalling column, the way George W. Bush lied to the American public about what kind of cheese he likes on his cheesesteak (really!), etc. doesn't seem like an appealing way to spend my time. But the fact that the right has an army of people willing to pretend that this sort of thing is the most important thing in the world is a massive, massive impediment to having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming, etc.

Darlings! Haircuts and earth tones decide our elections—and, thereby, the fate of the world. Their pre-eminence is also “a massive, massive impediment to having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming.” But so what? Matt would rather spend his time writing about the things that are interesting! Writing about things that decide our elections “doesn't seem like an appealing way” for Matt “to spend [his] time.”

As we’ve said, you have to admire the frankness.

So Somerby denounces Yglesias for giving insufficient attention to what kind of cheese Bush likes on his Phiully cheese steak (presumably because such hard hitting coverage would reduce his chances of getting a nice gig at "The Atlantic". Mr Somerby, are you familiar with this thing called google ? Try googling [cheesesteak "whiz with" bush yglesias] http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=cheesesteak++%22whiz+with%22+bush+yglesias&btnG=Cerca&meta= and you will find that Yglesias flogging Whizgate like it was Al Gore mixing up which disaster he visited with James Lee Witt.

Also how about "If you want to know how the other side wins, we suggest you read this post very carefully. This post explains why the Very Serious Young People stayed politely silent during Campaign 2000, even as we did their work for them concerning those earth tones and all those fake quotes. (Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal!) As the darlings kept their distance, that right-wing distraction machine changed votes—and it sent George Bush to the White House. "

Mr Somerby, sir, in 2000 Matt Yglesias was 19 years old. Don't you think it is a bit harsh to condemn him for not saving the country from it's idiocy before he turned 20 ?

Rambling Man Why Don't You Settle Down

A Samefacts reader has one question and Three hypotheses

I have a question that’s been bothering me about the Ahmadinejad visit press coverage, and actually all coverage of middle-eastern political figures/terrorists, etc. I couldn’t figure out who to ask, so I thought I’d throw it out to you and the reality-based community to solve.

Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia was universally described “rambling”. Bin Laden’s last tape was described as “rambling”. Al Sadr’s speeches are invariably described as “rambling” Go back a couple of years and Google Saddam Hussein’s speeches, and THEY’re all described as “rambling”. Why is this?

Two bullets tagging 3 testable hypotheses follow. The one which has some, uhm empirical support is

* They all really do ramble. Is there something about being a dictator that discourages you from being concise? No one dares edit your speeches? If so, one would also expect a high incidence of rambling by faculty of Western universities. Oh, wait ...

I'm inclined to expand on that point for an hour or so, but I will resist and get to prof. Kleiman (who wrote a filibuster once and would know about hypothesis 3)

I have a fourth hypothesis [and a fifth], based on the fact that while the public seemed to like Bill Clinton's speeches, the press often described them as over-long (I don't know whether the word "rambling" was used): political reporters suffer from attention deficit disorder and dislike complex exposition. [* new paragraph needed] I also suspect that "rambling" is intended as a euphemism for "incoherent," just as "controversial" is journalo-euphemese for "crooked" or "scandal-prone."

The last suspicion is almost certainly correct. Such euphemisms are not just silly, they are dangerous as they make it possible for reporters to effectively libel public figures by calling them "controversial" because they are controversial and say a speech is "rambling" because it was rambling. Thus, for example, the totally obvious observation that Speaker Pelosi is, like all politicians of any stature, controversial, was a way to insinuate that she is "controversial" that is rapidly destroying her political career.

On the attention deficit disorder, I sympathize with the MSM journalists and appeal to Kevin Drum for his usual bit of MSM bashing bashing.

THE DEBATE....There are times when I really admire the fortitude of mainstream reporters, and last night was one of them. For the first time in a while I watched one of the Democratic debates, and by the end I felt like I was in a total fog. What would I have done if I had to write a thousand-word summary to make the next day's paper? I couldn't even figure out enough to say for a blog post.

They seem like hyperactive children, but they are in the tough position of having to summarize a lot of words with a few words. Thus every new topic raised is a new challenge. Once, I had the humiliating experience of listening to a speech by a prime minister and then being asked by a journalist what he said. She wanted a quick summary. I had just listened not separating the wheat from the chaf. This was around 199 something low and the point was the European community had better not cut aid to former Portuguese colonies to give it to Eastern (and Central) Europe in transition from communism. Also that the concept of social solidarity is very nice but better not get in the way of hard nosed policy making. On the spot, however, I was on the spot.

The Battle is Joined. May the People of Burma be victorious.

The End of an Era

Someone has accused Bill Clinton of being insufficiently political !

That someone is the usually acute Matthew Yglesias who is clearly suffering from the mass pomposity on parade at the Clinton Global Initiative

Bill Clinton, at the opening ceremony for his meeting, defined the purpose of the Clinton global initiative as to tackle problems that "government won't solve, or that government alone can't solve." A worthy purpose, indeed, for a charity. And I really think there are things that fit that category. [snip]

That, though, isn't what this event is about. Instead, it's really about political issues: education, poverty alleviation, global public health, and climate change.

In those fields, it really seems to me that Bill Clinton could do much more good using his charisma and standing to try to convince rich guys and executives at big companies to take a more enlightened attitude toward the political process,

Uhm Matt, think that maybe Bill is doing good as a goo goo do gooder because he's given up on politics ? Or maybe he is trying to help Senator Clinton by do the most politicianlike of acts -- pretending to be outside of politics.

I guess he could have stayed home and baked cookies, but this is clearly as far as he is willing to get from politics. Why doesn't someone real real smart explain that to Yglesias.

Like maybe Yglesias

Now, obviously, despite my somewhat jaundiced views about charity as an approach to tackling big issues, this is a good thing. And, indeed, it seems to me that it's an especially good thing in that the "commitments" go beyond the merely financial. One of the best things about engagement in charitable activities -- especially if it's real engagement rather than mere check-writing -- is that it can get people emotionally invested in the issues they're working on which can, over time, help broaden perspectives and get people more involved with the need for systemic remedies. In principle, there's a possibility for conflict between allocating resources toward charitable giving and toward political advocacy, but in practice I'm not sure that conflict really arises -- if you build social capital and a sense of engagement, you tend to get both.

Yeah exactly. That's what I meant. Why didn't I manage to put it so well ?

Oh and Matt, are you sure that WiFi is an unmixed blessing ?

Being the Worlds Leading Bush Hater is Getting Hard

For example, I think I have some fierce competition from all Republicans in Congress after the Bush administration managed to get these two stories on the front page of www.washingtonpost.com *on the same day*.

"WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates will ask Congress Wednesday to approve nearly $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, increasing initial projections by more than" the total cost of the SCHIP bill which Bush has threatened to veto and "which would spend $35 billion to give health insurance to 4 million more low-income children."

Looks like Mr Bush thinks it's unfair that he can't get re-elected and other Republicans can and he is bound and determined to do something about that.

I find myself in disagreement with Ahmedinejad (check) Matthews (check) and Greenwald (Hu waaaaht ?!?) and I agree with Pat Buchanan (make it stop please make it stop).

I basically agree with Greenwald (as I ly do) and think he is making a very important point (as he usually does) but he is letting Ahmedinejad and Matthews play a little fast and loose with the facts (as they usually do). In this case, they are stating the conventional wisdom. Buchanan acts as a knee jerk nationalist Eurohater (As always (I'm not like him I swear)) Let's role the tape

For that reason, it was actually refreshing to see the quite rational and fact-based discussion of U.S.-Iranian relations between Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC Monday night, after Ahmadinejad's speech. The entire discussion is worth reading, but what was most notable about it was their recognition of indisputable facts which undermine the predominant American media narrative of the Evil, Hitlerian Iranian regime hating the angelic, freedom-loving, innocent, victimized United States (why do they hate us??):

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple things. I thought -- you know, I'm not going to give him credit for anything big time, but he did score some interesting points. He said the United States backed Iraq in the war, the bloody horrible war with Iran that killed a lot of Iranians. That‘s going to help him back home, sticking it to us for backing Saddam all those years.

BUCHANAN: Right. . . . Chris, to your point, he said two things. The Western nations invented chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Americans used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were used on our people in the war against Iraq, where you all supported Iraq against Iran. Now, all those are statements of fact, and they‘re very, very persuasive in the Arab and Islamic world in making his case.

OK Chris Ahmedinejad how did the US back Saddam in the war and for all those years ?
Geostrategists of all orientations agree that, after the fall of the Shah, the US turned to Saddam Hussein to protect our interests from the Islamic Republic of Iran. I claim the claim that the US and Saddam Hussein were allies is valid to (very roughly) about the same extent that the claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were allies. In contrast, the USSR was closely allied with Iraq until just about the end of the USSR. Also France was much closer to Iraq than the US was as were Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and etc.

First point -- not all administrations compromised with Saddam Hussein. The tilt towards Iraq in the war was a policy of the Reagan administration. St Jimmy is really innocent.

Second, the tilt consisted of meetings (like Iraq al Qaeda meetings) and intelligence sharing (different because the US has really really good technical intelligence but that is technology not policy). Plus there was a loan ostensibly to buy food made by the Atlanta branch of the BNL about which I can not speak as a former BNL fellow (a joke but I did get money for nothing from the BNL just like Saddam and Silvio Berlusconi and I'm sooooo proud).

In particular, in contrast to say France, the US never allowed the sale of weapons to Ba'athist Iraq. They did buy some unarmed helicopters (8 iirc) which they claimed were for civilian search and rescue and then armed. However, US arms flows to Iraq were absolutely dwarfed by French arms sales to Iraq. Less than 1% by value of arms sold to Iraq from 1980 through 1990 came from the USA. Don't ask me, ask SIPRI.

When Buchanan says "you all" he is not speaking Southern slang. He is stressing a fact which is widely forgotten by Europeans. he is exagerating (as always). Switzerland was neutral and so were many other fine countries, but the USA was no where near the top of the list of Saddam supporters.

Excellent Post by Quixote at Shakespeare's Sister

I have nothing to add or subtract

I'm older than Adam ......................... B of dailykos who wrote

"This provision, passed in 1996, is a relic of the pre-Internet era, during which the interactive computer services under consideration were large, corporate-sponsored sites like America Online, CompuServe and Prodigy."

OK Adam what do you think America Online and CopuServe were doing in the "pre-Internet era."

There was an internet before blogspot (painful as it is to remember).

and before that ahhh ever heard of a bbs mr B ? How about the "bitnet"

You young whippersnappers with your 500,000 hits a day have a thing or two to larn frum us here old timers (I even saw a punch card reader reading punch cards once).