Big Brother is watching you ... or maybe it's your mother

Electronic surveillance is moving from the broad scope of the Bush crime syndicate down to the micro level, as the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office is offering parents a new computer program that will allow them to monitor their children's Internet activity.

The agency is giving away 25,000 copies of computer monitoring programs at schools, libraries and sheriff district offices for parents to gain control of their children's online activities.

The sheriff's office bought the discs for $7 apiece using forfeiture money.

Lt. Mike Reardon said some parents don't understand how a computer works and they don't realize how often children are victimized online.

"This is very simple. No stress," Reardon said. The CD, called ComputerCOP, can easily be installed on a home computer and scans for words such as porn and marijuana, reviews pictures and videos and saves emails and chats.

The software doesn't block any of the content from the computer. It simply finds it so that parents can review what their child saw, and report any potentially illegal communication to a law enforcement agency.

What a great idea, right? I mean, what parent doesn't want to make sure children are safe from Internet stalkers and such?

There is another possible application for the software, though:

It also can be used to spy on a spouse or roommate, the sheriff's office said. However, that is not the intended use.

Well, wiping the president's ass is not the intended use for the U.S. Constitution, but Drunky McStagger went ahead and did it anyway. Repeatedly. With relish.

I'm just saying, just because a method of use isn't "intended" doesn't mean it won't be utilized that way. Forget spouses or roommates ... how about employees? Or neighbors? Or anyone with access to someone else's computer?

Or maybe I'm just paranoid. But seven and a half years under the thumb of the Bush crime syndicate's watchful, intrusive eye justifies a little paranoia, no?

The new Senate caucus: Democrats For Undermining the Constitution and Kowtowing Eternally to Drunky

Herewith, the members of the D-FUCKED caucus:

Evan Bayh (Indiana) (202) 224-5623
Tom Carper (Delaware) (202) 224-2441
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) (202) 224-6324
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) (202) 224-2043
Dianne Feinstein (California) (202) 224-3841
Daniel Inouye (Hawai'i) (202) 224-3934
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) (202) 224-3244
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) (202) 224-5824
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) (202) 224-4843
Claire McCaskill (Missouri) (202) 224-6154
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) (202) 224-4654
Bill Nelson (Florida) (202) 224-5274
Ben Nelson (Nebraska) (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (Arkansas) (202) 224-2353
Ken Salazar (Colorado) (202) 224-5852
Jim Webb (Virginia) (202) 224-4024

For your convenience, I have linked each of the traitors' names with their e-mail addresses and I've included their Washington office phone numbers. Incidentally (and somewhat curiously), of these, only Landrieu and Pryor are up for re-election in 2008.

I will be telling the D-FUCKED members exactly how I feel. I hope you will be, too. Indeed, Sens. McCaskill and Webb, to whom I gave money in 2006, have seen the last penny from me. And as for my old friend Bill Nelson? I will be working hard from now until 2012 to find a truly progressive candidate to oppose him. Hell, maybe I'll even run against him myself. ;)

Dear Senate Democrats: I have lost faith in your ability to do the right thing. Sincerely, Sinfonian

I've been somewhat nonplussed, if not bemused, by all the concern trollage regarding the Democrats in Congress, especially the Senate, and how they're not doing anything to stop the Bush crime syndicate from continuing to wipe their collective asses with the Constitution. After all, they've done far more than a Republican Congress would have done, and the hearings and investigations thus far have revealed an epidemic culture of corruption and politicization of the governmental process.

I've allowed that there probably have been legitimate reasons for much of the Congressional action, or inaction; I mean, for example, I totally disagree with Nancy Pelosi's decision to take impeachment off the table, but at least she has a plausible rationale. So, I've generally given the Dems a pass.

Until now.

The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate's acquiescence to the Bush crime syndicate on FISA this time is unforgivable. I can't for the life of me understand what they are thinking by giving Drunky McStagger more authority to violate individual rights; with all the evidence that when you give them an inch, they take a mile, you know that this is going to lead to more warrantless domestic surveillance, whether covert or not. If they did this only because "Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal," then they've lost their last shred of honesty and integrity.

I'm appalled that the Senate caved in. So, let Drunky veto the stricter proposal! We need judicial intervention, and there would be ample opportunity to use the veto against Drunky and the Repukes politically. But, now, we've got a bunch of pussy Democrats -- please forgive the sexist language, but the pejorative colloquial meaning of the term truly applies here -- who have failed to uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Senate vote was 60-28, complying with previous agreements to require a supermajority of 60 to pass the bill. As soon as I can find the tally of yeas and nays, I'll post it here. As I write this, it's not on any Senate or governmental website that I can find ... and I've been searching for an hour. (UPDATE -- see above.)

But there'll be more ranting to come on this. Count on it. This may not be the last time the Senate lets me down, but it's not going to go unnoticed or uncommented upon without response any more.

UPDATE (7:39 am 8/4/07): The bill result (it's S. 1927, sponsored by the egregiously bad Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and cosponsored by only one senator, the nearly as egregiously bad Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.)) has been posted in the Congressional Record, but the roll call vote, no. 309, still isn't up yet. I'm monitoring it regularly.

Also, I changed my last sentence. I can "comment on" the Senate's dereliction of duty all I want, but it won't change a thing. It's time to act -- indeed, it's well past time.