1 "Domestic eavesdropping" drives me nuts. I don't know what the heck they're talking about. It kind of reminds me of the old days when I would listen in on my big sisters's phone calls from the phone in the kitchen. I'd pick up the phone nice and slow, and then quickly put my hand over the mouthpiece. I'd hear two or three sentences before she'd start screaming. That's domestic eavesdropping. I have no clue what the moonbats at the New York Times are "reporting" about.

2 I can't help but think that the mindset of the Times, some in Congress and many in the public screech about this, calling it what it *isn't*, comes from a certain unadmitted guilt. Calling it domestic wiretapping (actually insisting that's what it is) makes them feel justified in the leak and justified in the demands of full disclosure. Playing with words. Damn common sense tells ALL of us that undermining the country in a time of war is inexcusable so change the words around and Voila! you can call yourself a "patriot". I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things.

3 Another attempt by the NYT to gin up and keep alive a story that fell flater than my daughter's pancakes.

4 That's a really good point, Oyster. I guess I never considered the possibility that mainstream editors and reporters were capable of feeling guilt.

5 I think they do feel guilt. They just reason it away. BSD is too pervasive in their minds. They HAVE to hate Bush. They can't help it. It supercedes everything else, so they convince themselves that what they're doing is exposing some perceived evil deed he has perpetrated and not an actual act of sedition. And they do it over and over. And they call Bush "The boy who cried wolf?"

6 Oyster: "I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things." Great Gawd Almighty, this Psychosomatic-Bush-Hate stuff is like a sound bite from the Clinton days....just swap parties and "Bush" for "Clinton" and the rhetoric is virtually interchangeable. Of course you didn't hear a peep from these people ... they were DEMOCRATS. I heard plenty of peeps from the other people back then, I think they were REPUBLICANS! Now we've just got different loyal oppostion parties. Intellectual honesty time Oyster...though it might be satisfying to draw these conclusions because it plays comfortably into your worldviews, what makes this line of bull any more legitimate now than then?

7 It's legitimate because for one thing, I'm not from that camp. You know ... the Clinton bashers. And there are a bunch of people who feel the same way. I'm not just speaking for my self. The only time I ever bring Clinton up is to highlight a point that counters another. And I'm also not speaking for those who argue simple party-line arguments. You're right in that there are those who divide the ideals along a definitive party-line. But not like we're seeing now. I've never, in my many decades, seen anything like this. Now that the internet is open to everyone, EVERYBODY's a critic. And a significant number of them are hacks and newbies. Try asking any of these people what the Iraq war is really about and see what answers you get. Try asking any of them about social security and watch their eyes glaze over. Ask any of them what the difference is between progressive taxation and a flat tax and a fair tax. That's what I'm talking about. And the media is the worst of all. Their lazy. They've never really had to answer to anyone. And they perpetuate and cheer on this idiocy. Just sayin'.

8 Alright, that was last night and after a few beers. My point is that these are the people who during the last general election cycle could not for the life of them tell you why they voted for Kerry without giving an answer equivalent to "He's not Bush." I would ask how they felt about Kerry's plan for healthcare or social security and nearly every time they couldn't answer the question and would instead bash Bush's plans. Yet they couldn't tell me any particulars at all about Bush OR Kerry's plans. Every time I ever asked them about Kerry the answer started with, "Well, Bush ..."

9 xgkpwfke gstcgjtroc soeyngvhng

10 My main areas within linguistics are semantics (about the general linguistic meanings of words and things) and pragmatics (about how we work out what people mean in a particular context).