"From the conservative point of view, however, a little opportunism may well be in order. Perhaps they're howling less than expected because the Homeland Security Department would finally give them a mechanism for replacing the hated welfare state with a smoothly calibrated police one. If you're stopped for speeding, the new federal force could quickly scan your fingerprints for previous criminal activity. It could check out whether you're a welfare cheat or your credit is good, and it could easily read your most recent e-mail to your lover."

Wow! "e-mail to your lover"

Really!

All these things the government can already do...how does Homeland Security Department change things?

I confess, I have endorsed the re-establishment of civil defense - which is really what Homeland Security is all about.

homeland=civil
security=defense

They had to rename it - because of its cold war baggage. Yet, for al intents and purposes Homeland Security is the evolution (after a post-terrorist attack) of civil defense.

Had it been a nuclear attack - things would undoubtedly be different. Yet the same clampdown on security would be present and the police-state naturally increases.

It's amazing watching these journalists talk about lack of action and over-reaction simultaneously.

Bush was negligent AND overreacted!

Even in this piece the fear of losing their precious welfare state is paramount. No longer the coy denials of its existence or the damage it has done to african-american communities and their family structures. No none of these things are addressed. It is mearly a two-dimensional cut-up of Bush the executioner and his loyal followers instituting the new "Fatherland".

Now they whine about holding Padilla - yet if he set off a dirty bomb they would be whining about how they could have let him go!

Sleazy? Padilla? No. He is likely from a dysfunctional Chicago family and is merely the product of a total absence of caring. He may now be delusional or psychotic. But the journalists who exploit him to try and get at this administration any way they can? Yes. They are sleazy. Perhaps they also come from dysfunctional homes which make them lash out at people who understand a bit more and work for the good of the USA.

Perhaps Dan Rather had a father who beat him or a domineering mother. Perhaps his sole glory in life was to "read the news" and feel as if when he changed a word or injected his opinion that he could "control" the public.

Perhaps Barbara Walters diminutive stature left her feeling beyond small - and to rectify this shortcoming she sought out journalism to feel more powerful and larger than life.

The dysfunction probably reaches well into the Congress and its members of both the House and the Senate.

We observed for eight years how dysfunctional families create leaders who are more interested in validating their personal insecurities and are incapable of any true leadership.

The Village Voice is an institution, but their rhetoric falls so much flatter now in an era where information flows freely. Too many people can now easily see through the deceptions, twists and use of fear.

SDAI-Tech1