Exactly, Ben. Most folks don't understand the particulars of what they're objecting to generally. Elizabeth2's posts are a great example of taking the conversation further, and giving us a chance to understand, so that we might act, constructively.

And someone posted, I forget who, my apologies, a copy of a detailed analysis about the shortcomings in the bill. That was useful, the first time I'd seen a clear, concise explanation of exactly what is objectionable. And therein lies the road to addressing and fixing the objectionable.

Why do you think Greenwald's criticism is destructive?

In what way are we worse off for his having made it?

Of course, just because it can be easily debated using facts in a positive manner, it doesn't mean it will be…

And it's really been amazing how hard it's been for a lot of us, as Elizabeth2 did such a nice job of illustrating, to just get our hands on the basic facts. People seem much more interested in being outraged.

That's a valid point. I don't know anything about Greenwald. I was merely appreciating the larger point (to me, anyway) that constructive criticism requires suggesting a viable alternative.

I'm not accusing Greenwald of opportunism. I've been reading him for the last couple of years, and I've found him valuable, if a little shrill. A small disenchantment followed from seeing over time how he suffers from a tendency to follow trenchant observation with extreme conclusions.

Do I think he's a bit full of himself at the moment? Yes, I do. But more important, I'd like to see him channel the outrage toward specific remedies. That would move the conversation forward, and, since he, like us, believes at the very least that Obama is the lesser of two evils, gives the outrage he's voicing a place to go.

The legislation, in some form or another will pass. What's more important than fanning the flames is demonstrating how the concerns could be addressed. Personally, I think Obama seems open to that very idea, how does one balance the gathering of intelligence with the preservation of civil liberties, and that's the discussion I wish we were having and that Greenwald could easily pivot toward.

You mean he's been writing about FISA since its passage in 1978? No, he hasn't.

And he might have more credibility if he didn't sit out presidential elections.

We all know Greenwald's type. He's the shit head from Poli Sci 101 who proclaims that not voting is a valid act of protest. Who dominates the conversation and runs up to the lectern after class to continue his diatribe, so the professor will have no doubt that he is the smartest kid in class.

And then he goes back to his dorm to find his underwear hanging from the flagpole.