Recommended.

The GOP controls the dialogue in this country, and the Democrats seem to have moved into a position of If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em. This is now called "pragmatism."

Tom Robbins once wrote that the problems between people weren't political, they were philosophical. While his following speech went further than I beleive, the underlying point is solid.

Premise A: Each of us is responsible for no one other than ourself, and the responsibility for our lives rest solely with ourself. Others may choose to help, but they are under no obligation to do so, and we are lacking (I guess that's the best word) if we consistently need to rely on their help. It is our life and our ressonsibility to fix whatever may be wrong with it.

Premise B: Each of us has a responsibility to help each other, and we have a social compact that requires us to do whatever we can to help, whenever we can. If someone is struggling in their life, then it is up to us (either individually or as a nation) to help them out, and, in those times we need help, it is not unethical for us to expect help as well.

In America these days, Premise A resonates better with most people. We're in a climate of "greed is good" and materialism, where everyone's salary is published and everyone wants a better TV, or a better job or house or iPhone. The prevailing philosphy of the country is Premise A. And even when people want aspects of Premise B, they still have an inherent bias towards A. That's why people are okay with 401Ks instead of pension plans; they vote for lower property taxes instead of better schools -- even as they bitch about the schools, they vote for lower taxes. Obama talks about tax cuts, he doesn't talk about more spending. As a general rule these days, people don't like the idea of helping each other out -- they certainly don't like the idea of being forced to.

But, of course, that's our agenda on the progressive side. We think goverment -- and government is funded by our money -- has an obligation to help. We push for health care, and social security, and welfare programs and better schools -- all things that cost people more money. And people, as a rule, don't like having less money, and they like it even less when some of their money goes to the goverment.

Our problem with resonating with the public isn't that we don't try hard enough, it's that the core of our message is not one people want to hear. They may need to hear it, but they don't want to.

So we try to sneak our way into power and do those things we feel must be done in order to help. And we do that by laying low with some of these core ideas.

In regards to FISA and Iraq, there's another philosophical issue, as Margaret atwood laid out -- Freedom From and Freedom To -- and they are also mutually exclusive. FF wants a world free from fear, from danger. So things that are requires to do that are okay,and limitations that FF requires are part of the price. In FF, you can know that people are trying to keep you safe, keep you unoffended. And if that requires a few less liberties, it's worth it. FT wants a world where you are free to do as you please, and that comes with a price -- the freedom from being eavesdropped on means bad guys may get away with more. Freedom to speak means you may be offended by what someone else says.

But we can't argue for FT without limiting FF, and, honestly, the FFers are winning these days. Look at the almost universal acceptance of sex offender lists, or the fact that no one out side of FTers cares much about FISA. FT is a losing arguement these days, so we have to sneak our way into power there, too. It's not that we're less eloquent in our beleifs, it's that the mainstream has decided the other way for now.

Or that's the way I see it as a Premise B, FT guy :)

FISA is over and done with for better or worse. It passed both houses of congress and Bush signed the bill into law. It will not be revisited this year and may not be revisited until it expires in about 5 years.

Continuing to talk like the horse hasn't left the barn only makes irritable purity trolls even more angry and pushes them into not voting or throwing their vote away on third party candidates.

The executive branch now has virtually unlimited power to spy on Americans. That makes it all the more imperative that we elect Obama president and more and better dems to the House and Senate.

The only upside to this is the irony of ironies that Obama's AG just might use these now legal tools to get the evidence to put Bush and Cheney in prison once they're out of office.

Neither of those clowns are going to morph into choir boys once they go home. They'll be looking to cash in on all the favors they dealt out, many of which went overseas. They also can't very well stop using modern communication tools.

If and when Bush or Cheney get indicted look for the entire Republican party to morph into Ron Paul all of sudden when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. Then we'll get a better FISA bill.