
Now the whitehouse is tapping journalists phones

And PS, they're tapping your phones too


And if that wasn't bad enough, they're spying on the Internet. The following quote is from a key witness in the lawsuit against AT&T saying it was against the law for the them to comply with the NSA spy program. Hello Totalitarianism!
"In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities."
More of his story here

This all clearly has little to do with terrorism, and it has everything to do with detecting ANYONE who disagrees with the policies of the executive branch. Watergate was nothing compared to this.
the "Legitimate power of the executive" as dick Cheney calls it, is just a polite way of saying, the imperial president.
(e:jason),
Thanks for your response. DCoffee hasn't written in a while so I just saw your comment. I decided to ask The Beast myself what they consider themselves. Here is my email to the editors. If they write me I'll post it in my journal.
----------------------------------------------
Here is a question for The Beast. Does The Beast
consider itself a liberal publication? If not, where
does The Beast fall on the political spectrum?
Thanks,
Libertad
I can't speak for Joshy, but I believe it is a liberal publication. Now, I don't use the term as a perjorative, but merely a term to describe their politics in a most general way. They admit as much in their columns now and then, and anyway I think they are comfortable enough in their own skin to not be offended.
Although I consider most of its contents only bird cage worthy, I do have a serious soft spot for their brand of humor. I love how they make fun of Tom Cruise. I thought the Terri Schiavo "America's Favorite Vegetable" cover was way over the top extreme, same for the Reagan cover, but every one of us has an evil bastard inside that laughs at these things.
It's kind of funny when you think about how similar The Beast is to a program like Rush's, or probably more appropriately Rusty Humphries. In Rush's terms, they employ absurdity to demonstrate what they believe to be absurd. It's entertaining, it works, and it also gives you little nuggets of fact to think about. Yes, even Rush's show contains interesting little tidbits of fact to chew on.
I'm not so secretly wondering if any one of you take in any right-leaning media at all. I have Thom Hartmann set up on my iTunes podcast list, and I think he's great. I don't think you can take in a story from only one political perspective, and truly believe that you are being responsible and informed. For example, someone said the other day on the radio that the war on terror is bullshit - Why? - because if we were really so serious about stopping terror we would be policing the border better. It made me think about the war on terror from a new perspective. Very valuable.
Of course the Beast's article is mostly junk, but there are little nuggets of fact inside to consider - like the jails being built. Also the fact that Bush never uses his veto - very interesting.
I don't think people should take that particular publication very seriously, on both ends, in terms of believing everything they say, and in terms of getting so pissed off when something is said that upsets you.
I learned that lesson very recently.
I love the Beast, particularly their covers. My favorites were when Reagan died and the head line was "Reagan accepts key position at the gates of hell" and this one :::link:::
Their disturbing and twisted humor often mimics the disturbed nature of our traditional media and our government.
(e:joshua), do you really think the Beast is liberal?
of course they are, but that doesn't mean they can't find good info or write well. :)
you should read the bullited headlines at least, and their notes on how Bush has never vetoed a bill, but has issued twice as many signing statements as ALL previous presidents combined. Saying things like "Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law "as advisory in nature." hmm, not a veto?
Dude - you do know that the guys at The Beast are unhinged lunatics, right?
If you want a reasonable liberal who knows what he is talking about, check out Thom Hartmann.