Paralysis of the Mind

So, I have been called out by my own comments section... whoa! :)

Anyway, Danny, an undecided wrote in this morning and said: I'm no Republican, but you don't think Kerry will do any better if he's elected, do you? (I see that you have a link to his site.) Here's a guy who can't make up his mind, and can't give straight answers to questions (especially on "Meet the Press"). I know a lot of politicians are that way, but would you willingly vote for a guy like that?

I should now like to answer you, and perhaps, change your mind a little. Let me say, right from the start though, that I appreciate the fact that you're undecided with an open mind, and that you'd be willing to change it, in either direction. If you see a thousand things that make you want to vote for Bush, by all means...

... but... lemme have some say first. :)

From the top: the coverage of our political system disgusts me. "Campaigning" doesn't mean "get your views on the issues out there" it's come to mean "release some nice-sounding sound bites and get videotaped doing interesting things." This leads to bullshit like Kerry snowboarding or Bush fly-fishing. I appreciate that they're humans who do things; neither activity have ANY bearing whatsoever on the future of our country and should be absolutely ignored by the media.

Furthermore, the media plays too much a part in all of this nonsense. I liked Dean quite a bit, come primary time. Whether or not you agreed with him or appreciated him, you have to give him the fact that he built a powerful base of support from a group of people that were really into the man as a politician, which is pretty damn rare today. Yet what did Dean get from the media? "The Scream." I ask, does that have ANY bearing on the future of our country? If anything, the fact that Dean was in tune with his people should be a good sign, not a bad one. And believe me, it was all a media creation: I was in England at the time, and the two things I saw from the primaries were Kerry's victory, and the Dean scream. No nuance on views. No explanation on how caucases work (it's not a direct vote like a primary). No mention of anything else Dean said in his speech.

That's media fueled BS. I don't like it a bit more than you. But it means that politicans have to be ridiculously careful in answering questions. They can't say anything or do anything that could come back to haunt them. Athough the Republican Right continually calls our media the "liberal media," it's anything but. (I could write 10,000 words on that, but it's another post for later.) Anything Kerry says will be plastered the next day on Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, O'Reilly Factor, the American Spectator, Hannity and Colmes, and really, all of Fox News and just abolutely ripped apart. On the same token, Bush can say anything and the next day those same publications (along with most of the rest of the media) will be tripping over themselves to praise it.

That said, I've never heard Bush make a cognent point when speaking publically. You can say that Kerry's perfomance on MTP was poor (I would probably agree), but did you hear Bush's Press Conference? I honestly keep waiting for the report on an English teacher from his past committing suicide! He's a terrible speaker, especially when he's wrong-footed by a question. Kerry is, in return, a very good speaker most of the time, and has proven himself to be very good in extemperanous situations. But even so, I'd still say, public speaking is a small job.

As for this "flip-flop" crap, let me say this. I do NOT think flip-flops are the end of the world when it comes to leaders. No, I don't want to see someone make a big stand on something and a year later utterly change his tune. But leadership isn't a static condition; circumstances change, conditions change, and so forth. Kerry's nuance on some issues doesn't come across in a media looking for sound bites. But Bush's mind seems never to change. Look at Iraq. Whether or not you thought it was a good idea to go to war, it's been handled pretty shabbily. Bush's plan was: "We'll liberate, we'll be heroes, we'll set up a government and it'll be great!" Now, I'm no scholar on the Eastern World or anything, but I could have told him it wouldn't be like that. It hasn't been. But the talking points haven't changed. Nor has this "deadline" to set up a government. June 30th? He didn't (and my guess is couldn't, rather than wouldn't) answer point-blank in his own press conference as to who we'll be turning power over to. "You'll have to wait and see" he said. WHAFUCK? This isn't some game, this is American lives on the line, and there's been absolutely NO movement. The Iraqis can't handle things on their own. Yet over and over "June 30th, June 30th." Nothing is going to happen on June 30th. There might be some press conferences, some media handling, but in reality, we're going to be the power in Iraq for a good long time. Bush could at least acknowledge this, but won't, because his people push Kerry as a "flip-flopper" to fairly good results.

But looking at that:

Bush helped to vote down a bill to create a Homeland Security Department BEFORE 9/11. It was sponsered by Democrat Max Cleeland, a Vietnam Vet who lost 3 limbs in the war. Bush pressured Senate Republicans to kill the bill, and it was done. After 9/11, Bush couldn't create one fast enough.

Bush and Cheney were DEAD-SET against a 9/11 commission. Then they were for it, but weren't going to testify. Then they were going to testify. Now they're going to testify, together, and have it neither on the record, nor be under oath. (I'm unsure what that's gonna accomplish, but okay...)

When Bush ran in 2000, he was dead-set against using the army for nation-building. He also ran on fiscal responsibility. Now, our army is building a nation in Iraq (and I assume, we're doing the same in Afghanistan, though we don't hear much about it anymore), oh yeah, and we have the biggest deficit in our nation's history because of his economic plan.

Damning: Bush rated Osama bin Laden as the #1 priority after 9/11. And later...

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

Both of these were reported by the AP, UPI, Reuters, etc etc.

There's plenty more. I could literally go on all day about awful things Bush has done. You ask if I think Kerry will be a lot better? I doubt it. Not becuase I don't agree far more with Kerry on most positions, but becuase a Republican-controlled Congress will do its best to make sure there's a quagmire that he will be unable to get through. Clinton was not exactly a wild left-winger (probably the most conservative Democrat to be elected President EVER), but when he wasn't screwing himself, he was getting screwed by a hostile Congress and press.

However...

I think that if Bush has power for 4 more years, this country is going to fall apart. He continues to want to lower taxes while we're over-extended by the war bills. He wants to strike down abortion, gay rights, and free speech. The country has been trending right-ward for the last 25 years, and it has to stop before people like Pat Buchanan are considered "centrists." Kerry will have a huge mess on his hands should he win, but it'll be a small step in a better direction. Or should I say, it'll be a fuckload better than if Nader gets elected somehow... :)

I hope that answered, at least a little. I appreciate any more comments! Thanks for stopping by.

Yes, it's time for everyone's favorite game: FUN WITH ENDNOTES!

The reason we play tonight's game is to see if the big bad government will come fiddling with blogs. According to reports, the CIA is now tracking blogs.

Awesome. I have some information for the CIA.

I know a terrorist* who is responsible for lots and LOTS of terrorism. He isn't Muslim** but he's still pretty evil. His attacks on freedom*** and the American economy^ have caused my country^^ lots of pain. He has declared war on other countries^^^ without prevacation. He moves in shadowy circles# funded by his own countrymen, many of whom support his reign of terror##. His cohorts### often film their propaganda$ and show it on state-sponsored TV$$.

I hope, Mr. and Mrs. CIA Agent, that you find this terrorist and stop his reign of terror. I write this, and I'm Iraqi. Or Chinese. Or whatever it'll take to make you notice what I'm writing.$$$

Thank you.

* - George W. Bush
** - But he's still a fundamentalist!
*** - Patriot Act, the detainees at Guantanamo, the new FCC regulations against free speech, the outing of Valerie Plame
^ - tax cuts which have given us the biggest deficit ever
^^ - A small North American nation which used to be all about freedom
^^^ - Iraq now. Iran and Syria later. Anyone for Jordan tomorrow afternoon?
# - PNAC. And Condi Rice and he have a REAL weird relationship
## - Anyone for Richard Mellon Schife? Rush Limbaugh? Halliburton?
### - Heart Attack Cheney, Kindasleezy Rice, John Asscrack
$ - Like that press conference where Bush said the word "um" nearly as much as the words "Iraq" "Terrorist" and "Duh"
$$ - I like to call that one Fox News
$$$ - I might also be Russian. Wheee!!!

Occasionally, the moon lines up just so, and the planets align in JUST the right fashion, and low tide is at 5:47 a.m. and the sun rises 2 and a half minutes later, and your girlfriend inexplicably cooks your favorite breakfast AND dinner... and your sports teams all get in a line and just roll.

Sometimes, your whole life rolls. But that'll have to wait until I have confirmation. Shhhh. More on that later. :)

Anyway, it was a fine weekend all around the board for every last one of my sports teams (Except one. We won't talk about the one. It didn't bring me down too badly) and since I've been asked about 10 times already, let me start with...

The New York Football Giants: I have real mixed feelings on this one... but, I have to say its a success because we got our man, Eli Manning. Did we give up too much? Wellllllllllllllllll.... I have to at least give a pretty disappointed "probably" to that. We tossed aside our 1st round pick for next year. Now, if we go to the playoffs next season, I could care less. But we're either starting a frosh QB, or else Kerry "I'm a RE-TREAD" Collins behind a pee-wee offensive line. We're going to be playing in a much improved division (TO to Eagles, Gibbs/Portis in Washington, Parcells with more of "his guys" in that shithole Texas town) and it's hard to see us winning more than 8, given the circumstances. At the same time, it's REAL easy to see us winning 4 or 5, which would translate into a pretty diesel first round pick... ours no longer.

If Eli Manning is as good as his brother, though, I won't complain ONE freakin' bit. So, again, I'm happy.

the SAWX: Sweep the Yanks. 6 outta 7 for the season. I know I'm a bitter old New Englander who doesn't think a lick of good about ANYTHING the Sawx do, but damn. It feels GOOD to sweep the Yankees in their trashy little park.

Blackburn ROVERS~! We beat Everton, at Goodson 1-0. Jon Stead scored. Jon Stead for fuckin' President, or Prime Minister, or King of the World... whatever. Relegation is approaching impossible, all we need is another point from our final 3 games (or for any of the teams below us to blow one) and we'll be safe.

However, some off-season, we need to figure out what the hell sent our train careening off the track. We need to throw a large amount of money at Mr. Stead. Like, a serious, third-world-country-GDP sort of number at him. See what happens. Next we need to take Mr. Souness out in the middle of a lake and beat him senseless with a wiffle bat. And then, we need to lock Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke in some sort of crypt. I rarely get a chance to see my Rovers play, but when I do, there's Muff and Scuff missing wide-open opportunities. We lost Dunn and Duff, our midfield simply doesn't MAKE as many chances as it did last year (although Emerton has been better than advertised) and we can't mess about in the finishing. Oh, yeah, and some defenders would be... y'know... nice.

Shorter Me: Blackburn needs some work. But we still have good pieces. Fire the coach. Thank you. :)

Detroit Red Wings: Well, okay, we're 1-1. But I'm still confident. I don't think Calgary is as good as the pundits do. I don't think Detroit is as old as their ages show, either, dammit. :)


And the Celtics continue to not exist.

Thank you. :)

Hi everyone, I'm now the token female on this blog. My name is Michelle, and I'm T-Diddy's "ex." Oooooooohhh.

Was reading about an American hero today, and caught something interesting. From Nedra Pickler who is an... uh... astute student of fair and balanced journalism. Here's how the piece started:

Records of John Kerry's Vietnam War service released Wednesday show a highly praised naval officer with an Ivy League education who spoke fluent French and had raced sailboats -- the fruits of a privileged upbringing that set him apart from the typical seaman.

I'm sure, right on the top of Kerry's military records, it said that Kerry had a privileged upbringing. "PVT. John Kerry - privileged upbringing" I have NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that's exactly what it said at the very top of those records.

She's a joke. As is the rest of the media (sorry Todd... :)

Let's see if blogger will get my name right...?

I hope you know what that means. I read this right here and almost had to vomit. Seriously. Please read it and share in my horror.

Who is at fault here? Are we the dumbest country in the world? Has the media totally lost the fucking plot? Something has GOT to give. November can seriously not come fast enough.

JMFC. Again.

Can a democracy survive low voter turnout?

A few years ago I used to rail against kids my own age who didn't vote. There was a littany of reasons: "The candidates are the same, All politicians are crooked, I don't care, I don't have time, Nobody speaks to me" etc etc etc, and for whatever reason, I used to feel annoyed and somewhat ashamed of the fact that my generation didn't vote.

Maybe I've changed my tune, but, I take back everything I've ever said about those who don't vote. Bless you for not voting. And let me tell you why.

There are SO many people who do vote, but absolutely vote for ridiculous or specious reasons. While I am glad that people vote, I would prefer that anyone who has no knowledge stays home. I know a Political Science major... yes, Poli Sci... who when asked if she leaned liberal or conservative, said (and I couldn't make this quote up), "Conservative? I don't really know what that means. I always vote Republican, though."

Doesn't know what conservative means? And a PoliSci major? Are you KIDDING me?! But for some reason, she decided that she would vote Republican. Which in this election means conservative... of course, she has gay friends and wants gay marriage AND admitted she was "very" concerned about the environment...

So basically, on one had you can say, "Gee, I'm glad she's partcipating in the Democratic process" but on the other hand, you can say, "Hey, she's a blistering idiot who doesn't deserve to vote." I used to say the former, but more and more I feel like the latter. I can appreciate the fact that someone gets in party lines and is willing to vote down those party lines forever - fine, so long as you actually agree with the party on the issues of importance to you. I'm a liberal, which means it's gonna take a lot of work for a right-wing candidate to get my vote, but that doesn't mean if a pro-life, pro-environment Republican came down the pike that I couldn't vote for him or her.

But the party allegiance is only the start of the problem. This girl obviously has no real idea of how politics function, and I can assure you, she knows a lot more about "The Apprentice" than she does about the American politican system. Which is her right, of course. But how is someone like her going into the voting booth with no idea of what she's voting for even a little better than her staying home and ignoring it altogether? Her ignorant vote for Bush and a Republican slate (and even though she admitted she might not vote for Bush with everything I explained to her, I'm not exactly holding my breath) cancels out my considered, thoughtful, and well-read vote for whomever I will vote for. And I have to feel a little cheated.

Before the rebuttals come in, I would feel EXACTLY THE SAME if she were an ignorant Democrat. Although, it's my experience, most people who have no idea of what they're voting for do vote to the right. But that's an entirely different post, eh?

I'll say it again: "Mars, bitches!" :)

Editor note: With the recent, erm, utter disregard for posting anything, the editor has cooked up something really big and long and highly suggests you read it and pass it around to your friends.

One of the major issues in that big boondoggle we lovingly call "Election 2004" is the civil liberties crowd complaining about censorship in our current time of war. One of the capstones on that issue is the Patriot Act - a document that chills allies of free speech. But what IS the Patriot Act? How and why did it come into being? These are questions that have to be asked prior to the next election, if we can fully ascertain what Ashcroft and his subordinates are doing in regards to curtailing our civil liberties. So here, forthwith, after some actual research - yes, it was painful, thank you for asking - is my guide to the talking points of the Patriot Act.

The beginnings of the Patriot Act

In 1978, members of Jimmy Carter's administration went to Congress and quietly lobbied for more leeway in dealing with foreign terrorists. Prior to this point, all intelligence services answered directly to Congress, with the executive branch basically forced to sit on the sidelines, unable to properly dictate what they wished said services to investigate without overstepping their legal boundaries. Congress agreed, and in 1978 passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA was a bargain between Congress and the Executive branch, allowing the Executive branch a new arena in which to track foreign terrorists. Bear in mind, the clear designation was for foreign surveillance only; the act was never meant to spy on Americans (unless the American in question could be proven as an agent for a foreign power).

A court was created for the act, and in the same year, the FISA court began issuing warrants for surveillance activities. To give some idea of how discriminating the court is, nearly 14,000 cases have been brought to it since its inception, and only five have been rejected on any grounds. The warrants issued from the FISA court could only be used to garner information about suspects, other warrants were necessary to legally use the information to prosecute.

Passage and the climate of October 2001

Less than a month after 9/11, Ashcroft and Bush pushed Republican House members to back a new bill, one which was explained as being utterly necessary for going after Osama bin Laden, and terrorists around the world. This bill was the Patriot Act, and was obviously passed by wide margin in both houses.

However, to say that party leadership from either side is totally complicit in the passing of the Act would be unfair to all involved. Just a day before the Patriot Act made it to the House of Representative's floor, the first of the anthrax letters was discovered in the offices of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Bill Frist (R-TN). There was a fair amount of chaos, plenty of fear on all sides, and as Congress left their building, it's hard to imagine that this second terrorist attack was not on their minds when the Patriot Act came up for a vote. Also, due to the chaos, very few staff members of Congressmen and women had time to actually read the entire act and scrutinize the document for flaws.

As it turned out, Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in the Senate. Other senators expressed resignation over the vote, still others strongly backed the Act, most notably Trent Lott and the rest of the Republican leadership. Bush signed it into law, and soon it was indeed, the law of the land. Not long after, troops were on the ground in Afghanistan, and our military was going to work in the War on Terror.

At home, though, with time healing the original shock, questions slowly bubbled to the surface about exactly what our elected officials had made a law in the Patriot Act.

The Act itself

SECTION 213: Search First, Announce Later

Plenty of hippies can tell you: If the cops knock, and you don't answer, and they don't have a warrant, you'll be okay. The legal rights of law enforcement agents to come into your house are pretty limited without a warrant. Even with a warrant, law enforcement typically have to "knock and announce" - which is to say, they bang on the door, let you know they have a warrant, and if you don't comply, they'll knock that door down. Only in rare cases were warrants allowed to be served without law enforcement agents letting the target know what was being looked for or how the warrant was issued.

However, section 213 changes the playing field. Now, law enforcement agents can search first, and notify you much much later, if at all. These so called "sneek-a-peek" warrants signal a possible end for the practice of knock and announce. Now, law enforcement agents can go ahead and get extensions on telling the target that their home was searched - and more than 250 announcements have been extended since the Patriot Act was passed, meaning that some searchees probably still don't know what the score is.

SECTION 214/216/218: Don't Hassle Me, I'm A Local

The bargain with FISA was the fact that the FISA court could only pass warrants for foreign surveillance. Section 218 changed that. Now, the terms of FISA can be applied to Americans just as easily as it could be to any foreigner. And one of the galling parts of a FISA court warrant is the fact that once passed, the FISA court has no oversight over the warrant, meaning that once you're a target, you could conceivable be a target for the next 100 years. There's no time limit for usage, nor is there a reason for probable cause needed. As I said higher up, the court has only denied an extremely small percentage of warrant requests. Or, for more precise reading, the court has denied .000036% of all requests.

Sections 214 and 216 deal with phone and internet tapping. Section 214 is the phone tapping for Americans under the FISA rules, while 216 allows authorities to tap internet activity if a phone tap is allowed. Prior to this, seperate warrants were needed for each.

Section 216 sunsets in 2005, and is one of the things Ashcroft will no doubt work to sustain should Bush be re-elected.

SECTION 215: We Check Out What You Checkout

Surprisingly, Section 215 is one of the better-known and vilified parts of the Act. Basically, it allows the government to monitor library and book-seller records to see what customers are reading. Law enforcement agents can do this without the target's knowledge, without a warrant, and without any consent on the part of the library.

Librarians, stereotypically the quiet marm type, have really mounted a defense against this. In many libraries, the workers there delete or destroy records as soon as the reader returns a book. Some libraries have put up signs warning browsers that their records cannot be protected. Still others have gone on record saying that if the FBI comes calling, they'll be calling in the lawyers.

According to the Department of Justice, for all the hoopla, Section 215 has yet to be used. On the other hand, a survey done by Newsweek estimated that nearly 14% of libraries were visited by federal agents after 9/11. Since the government isn't required to say anything, it's hard to know which side is telling the truth, but the DOJ's claim of zero uses rings a bit hollow. This section sunsets in 2005, and considering all of the angst it caused, it's hard to imagine Ashcroft and the DOJ fighting very strongly to sustain this part of the Act.

SECTION 411/412: Don't Come 'Round Here No More

These sections deal with how the government can deal with undesirable aliens. However, from the top, these parts of the Patriot Act are NOT responsible for the lack of representation for Guantanamo Bay detainees, the tribunal to try non-citizens, or FBI agents able to enter church property or any other un-Constitutional methods that the Bush administration have used against foreigners to date.

Section 411 makes it quick and easy to deport any resident alien who associates with a terrorist, either knowingly or unknowingly. 411 also allows the denial of admission back INTO the nation for the above reason. Section 412 allows the Attorney General to make that decision without prior showing or a court ruling. So Ashcroft really could line up them up and ship 'em outta town. With that, 412 allows absolutely no judicial review, and if the country which we deport the alien to doesn't want the alien, the AG could concievably hold onto the alien forever, even with NO charges against the alien. So if Ashcroft really decided he didn't like you, and you weren't a born American... weeeeelll... it could definitely get hairy.

Buck up, though, these sections have rarely been used, because of the fear of litigation. Only 3 aliens have been denied admission because section 411, and to date, 412 has not been used. However, the administation has perpetrated other miscarriages of justice without the Patriot Act's help, and that is another issue outside of the Patriot Act. Both of these acts sunset in 2005, but again, the other cases of mistreating aliens are even more disquieting.

SECTION 505: Your Records Are Ours

Yet again circumventing the warrant issue, Section 505 "compels" holders of personal records to turn them over to government law enforcement agencies. No warrant, no judicial oversight. Once the government has the records, there is no need to explain to the holder of the records or any judge how the records will be used. The caveat is, of course, that 505 can only be invoked in case of a terrorism case, but again, that's a very small comfort.

This section has drawn the first attack on the Patriot Act. In July, the ACLU filed a suit against the FBI on behalf of Muslim members of a Portland Oregon mosque. The FBI had raided the mosque looking for information in a non-terrorist case (the target in question was a suspected murderer) and the ACLU contends that the FBI violated the church's right by invoking the Patriot Act in a non-terrorist case. The case has yet to make trial, but it will be an interesting test of the Patriot Act's constitutionality.

Section 505 ends in 2005, and Ashcroft has said publically that this section is one he hopes to sustain through Patriot II or other legislation.

SECTION 802: There's Terror Everywhere

Oddly enough, this currently unused section, has united groups on both sides of the field against the Patriot Act. This section bans domestic terrorism in making a law against organizations that would intimidate or coerce the government by any violation of criminal laws of the United States.

Very vague wording has led some left-wing groups to fear prosecution simply for being on the wrong side of the political spectrum, but also has made some right-wing groups chime in against this section. It's rare to see fundamentalist Christian groups and the ACLU sitting on the same side on ANY issue, but here it is.

This section ends in 2005, and is likely to be in Patriot II.

After the Patriot Act

Late in 2003, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed a new bill, titled "Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" which would strike down or change Sections 215, 505, and 213. Following her lead, Feingold pushed forward a new piece of legislation known as the SAFE Act.

The SAFE Act narrows the warrants under section 213, entirely eliminates section 215, and offers to slow down the work of the FISA Court (and also to make the court more visible and give it more oversight). President Bush has already promised to veto the bill if it passes, and although there's some bipartisan support for overturning the Patriot Act, it's very unlikely Feingold can come up with enough votes to over-ride a Bush veto.

Meanwhile, John Ashcroft countered with the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, commonly known as Patriot II. His list of items (should I say 'actionable objectives?') included easier government access to records, more government monitoring of computer activity, the ability to detain more foreign suspects, and extensions of all sections that are sunsetting in 2005. Due to the general dislike of the Patriot Act, Ashcroft and the Republican leadership in Congress have scrapped ideas to pass Patriot II all at once, and are looking to pass single lines of the new act as their own legislation, or tacking parts of Patriot II onto other bills.

Can it pass? It's possible. Much unpopular legislation is passed as "riders" on popular bills. However, without an anthrax scare, and cooler heads currently prevailing on the Hill, the likelyhood of Patriot II will be decided on how Election 2004 turns out. Should Bush win big, and take plenty of Congressional seats with him, the chances will be good. Should Kerry and the Democrats make any gains, it's unlikely Patriot I will survive next Feburary.

Conclusions

The Patriot Act is reviled, but the reality is that it hasn't really led to a lot of major miscarriages of justice. However, that's only to this point, and certainly, the extent of the powers that the Act allows is frightening. Furthermore, the Act hasn't caught a single terrorist to date, which leads anyone to believe that for all the hoopla, it's really a bunch of junk. I am not hesitant in the least to suggest that the Act should be struck down immediately, partly because of the gross trampling of civil liberties, but also because it's obviously not working as intended.

Instead of making it easier to search American citizens, the government should do more leg work prior to allowing aliens in country. The government should work with other national governments to have a better idea of who is coming to America to lead a quiet life, and those who are entering the country to be part of a terrorist cell. No plan is perfect, but putting ALL Americans under a microscope is neither an expediant or fair solution. Personal records should only be subopenaed once there's a real suspect in play, not just taken for any suspicion.

In the short term, I appreciate the fact that the Patriot Act hasn't been used more often, but looking at a longer term with the Act in place, giving the government such powers is only asking for misuse. Every war has had its battle between security and freedom, and to date, freedom has always won out in the long run. I fully believe that over time, freedom will win this battle as well, and the Patriot Act will not last past the 2005 calendar year.