Of course, I read here often enough that I know where you stand on a lot of things Pooch. I apologize for not clarifying my dry humor.
No need at all. I keep forgetting that the medium does not allow for body language and tone without use of emoticons - which I am often too lazy to use. My mistake, not yours.
I don't agree with the domestic wiretaps in either case. The communist threat as stated by J. Edgar was largely overstated (though not non-existent), and I think that arguments along the same line could be made about wiretapping under the PA. It's hard to judge the effectiveness of wiretaps under the PA when there are no statistics, only the govt. saying "Trust us". Sorry, but I don't.
I completely understand this attitude, and I can't blame you. But I have a different perspective on it. Since I did seven years in MI, I know the gummint can do some flaky things, but I also know why. I am not afraid of the government wiretapping me because I am not a terrorist. If they happen to listen in when I have an intimate call with my wife, well, as long as it doesn't show up on youtube what do I care? Should I be inclined to plan a drug deal, robbery or suicide bombing I hope they catch me and save the innocent folks I might otherwise hurt. But as I am not so inclined, I don't get too worried about the government listening in. I'm used to it anyway, as I worked on military bases for much of my life and calls from military phones are always subject to monitoring. The other side of the coin, however, is that should someone else decide to engage in such behaviors and I happen to be among those innocents affected, I have a similar desire to see the government stop them. I recognize the potential for Orwellian abuses in such activities but I think the benefits likely outweigh the risks. Or perhaps a better way to word that is that I fear the risks of not monitoring calls from suspected terrorists are greater than the risks of monitoring non-terrorists.
Why? The Kennedy's were the Hillary Clintons of their day (albeit a lot more charismatic), connected, wealthy, and doing whatever was politically expedient. That said, J. Edgar was a force unto himself, doing pretty much whatever he wanted with no accountability because of his ability to blackmail.
I know that - and I am old enough that nothing politicians do or did surprises me much. But this goes to what Cornel West calls the "Santa-Clausification" of Martin Luther King (and it applies equally to JFK, RFK and others along those lines). If there were a liberal Mount Rushmore, these three guys and John Lennon (or maybe that other "Lenin") would probably be on it. With the exception of Lennon, death was a good career move for those guys. Had even they lived to Ted Kennedy's age, the Kennedy brothers would be subjected to the kind of scouring other politicians get these days. Even the great Dr, King would be getting the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton treatment (though he would likely not deserve it as much as the Rev Sharpton does). Dr, King was destined to be revered anyway, but his legendary status was enhanced by the brutal manner of his death. The Kennedys may well have been footnotes in history (as Ted Kennedy will be) had they not taken the dirt nap early. We forget that these people were real people, politicians and powerful men. The deified icons couldn't be suspected of doing the same things the vilified Bush (who, after all, would have died a hero had he been killed shortly after yelling "We hear you!" to those firefighters in New York) has done. In fact, bugging a civil rights leader is far worse than bugging potential terrorists. But the motivation in both cases was very likely similar.
