Yeah, Urban Dictionary includes a similar usage, too:

In Philly, "joe" originally meant "extra hype." If someone were to be overly excited or anxious about something, you would tell them "stop actin' joe." However, over time it came to just mean "actin' stupid."

I don't think there's much to get "all Joe" about. As Hertzberg says in the recent New Yorker, in every race the Democrats are "carrying a bag of sand". It'll take a landslide to give the D's a small majority in the house, given today's demographics and the redistricting the R's have been able to do. And that's to say nothing of the tactics that have given the Republicans the last two presidential elections, and the conversion of much of the country to unauditable, unrecountable computer-based voting.

"Unaudited computer-based voting" ? Kinda like Washington States unaudited stealing of votes in 2004 which included dead, mia, prisoners, illegal aliens, etc. which gave the Governor race, after 2 recounts finally to Christine Gregoire.

Doesn't matter which party is in charge, the other party always complains. After all, complaining is a true sign that you are doing something?

Can't say I'll tell my kids that Republican's are evil and Democrats are the answer to our problems such as...

• continually low unemployment
• adding of new jobs, consistently
• incredible run of low interest rates which mean more people can afford their own homes
• Low inflation
• Increase of tax revenue, due to the robust economy
• Federal moneys available to fund all of Potter and company's Pet Portland projects
• prevention of terror attacks in US

I just can't wait for the Democrats to solve all of these problems.

"Doesn't matter which party is in charge, the other party always complains. After all, complaining is a true sign that you are doing something?"

That's pretty cynical, and maybe with justification. Close elections (and I guess that's what we have to look forward to) create a lot of tension. Realistically, even without criminal conduct, an accurate vote count is not possible under any voting system. (I've received two ballots in the mail for the last two Multnomah County elections, including this one. I've used only one and have done what I can to get this mistake corrected, but am I alone?) A statistically meaningful margin of victory would make this problem (and the partisan accusations that go with it) go away, but it is less and less likely to happen. Meanwhile, a black box voting system will certainly present a temptation to those who control it, whatever their party affiliation.

Carol, it's true that there was a lot of partisan griping about the fairness of the last few elections. But the problem with unauditable voting goes well beyond being just a partisan issue.

Ars Technica put out a terriffic article last week on the problem. Please go read it - the more people that know about the severity of the problems, the better the chance that it'll get fixed.

In summary, the article makes important distinctions between retail and wholesale fraud, and between detectable and undetectable fraud.

The problems with the Washington vote were generally at the retail level and were largely detectable: it takes a lot of work and substantial risk of jail to work up a hundred fraudulent registrations, and an extra hundred votes isn't (usually) decisive anyway.

The problems Allan L is referring to, and what the linked article tells us is possible right now, is undetectable wholesale fraud. One highly motivated and marginally skilled person with access to a single voting machine could theoretically alter vote totals for entire precincts, counties, or even states and no one could ever prove it had been done, much less correct the count. We're potentially looking at undetectable changes to tens of thouands of votes.

It's not a matter of Republicans and Democrats... the problem is so serious that the Greens could steal a US Senate race in Georgia, and no one could prove it had been stolen.

So please don't dismiss this as the raving of sore losers. Some of what you have heard may be just that, but there actually are real and serious problems to be addressed.

If we didn't have the political will to get the voting problems fixed after the 2000 presidential election, it's obvious that we never will. Just one more way we're sliding toward becoming a cheap 1960's banana republic.

I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets.

I couldn't agree more. Too many races will be won by "democrats" who twist themselves so out of shape to present an image they think will win...that they resemble, oh, I dunno, Joe Lieberman?

And the folks who have a death-grip on profiteering from the system? You may tickle them, but they ain't lettin go...

It reminds me of the Ballot Measure 46/47 debate...REAL reform? Mon dieu, get the smelling salts! We've gone too far...

Jack:

STEP AWAY FROM THE MOLOTOV!

Why not wait and see what happens?

Maybe the Democratic Landslide will come true, and your faith in the voting system restored.

If the D's fail to capture the House or Senate, pray tell how mainstream Americans will benefit from mob rule (assuming that's what 'in the streets' means).

Based on what I've seen on Portland's streets, I'd take a pass/move to Canada.

As long as most Democrats trip over themselves trying to be Republicans, I don't see what difference it will make if they gain a majority in the House of Representatives.

For instance, Sen. Kerry's comment that a lack of education might lead to duty in Iraq was a perfectly logical statement of fact. Young people go to college to better themselves, to increase their prospects, and to enhance their earning potential. (I don't think you will find "preparing you to serve in the military" as an academic program on most university websites. People don't try to get into Harvard or MIT because it will mean their local recruiter will want them as cannon fodder.)

But the Democrats (and Kerry himself) all want to sound like Sen. McCain on this issue and can't seem to find any comfort in the light of reason.

As long as the Democrats behave this way, I think we can all say they might as well be Republicans, maybe liberal ones like Hatfield and others. To have a true alternative party would be something else again and would be doomed to the "third party" syndrome. If it doesn't "quack like a Republican" then it doesn't deserve election.

America's mantra.

I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets.

I couldn't agree less. What drives this country these days is greed, total unadulterated greed. Greedy people don't go on the streets, too much to lose, those who lost any hope in the correctability of the system, those hungry or desperate do, if of sufficient numbers.

We are far from losing the faith in the ability of the system to self-correct; the country is not hungry or poor.

Moreover, streets are only good when there is an overriding consensus within the society that the system must go (as was the case in Eastern Europe), lacking this streets only provoke useless violence. Trust your deeper instincts, you don't want to face Humphreys of this world when they are ordered to meet you there.

What gives me hope is the sense that even creeps seem to be uneasy these days with the degree of their own creepiness.

The GOP doesn’t really ‘own’ too many issues they’ve sold voters on over the years, including financial responsibility, foreign policy, economic development, limited government, etc. I don’t think it’s responsible for the press or any of you to assume that Dems are chameleons because they want to talk about these issues.

Put your critical thinking caps on for two seconds and tell me how that makes any friggin' sense? Dems are trying to show people you don't have to spend hundreds of billions, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, get thousands of our soldiers killed, look the other way when your buddies profit off this occupation, and infuriate the world with our actions. The Bush Doctrine has been anything but a strong foundation for National Security... be it now or years from now. Why wouldn’t a Dem want to key in on this issue, if only to prove that diplomacy, not a ‘Kill-em-all!” foreign policy, is more viable option?

The talking heads and pundits love to perpetuate that passive, hand-wringing straw man. And they quite literally piss their pants when Dems go on the offensive, offer specifics (not the talking points we've become so accustomed to in the last 6 years), or demonstrate what people have been asking for in a politician.

Why shouldn't this be a mandate on this President, his nodding Republican enablers in Congress, and the entire facade of modern conservatism? The GOP botched the chance of a lifetime... the white house AND congress in hand, and a chance to show Americans what they had without Dems in the way. Well, we saw the goods, and no one is impressed.

"As long as most Democrats trip over themselves trying to be Republicans, I don't see what difference it will make if they gain a majority in the House of Representatives."

Yeah, right. Six years ago, lots of voters saw no difference between Bush and Gore, and so they voted for Nader. And here we are.

As one who voted for Nader 6 years ago, I don't take the blame. He's been ahead of the curve on just about every issue. I actively campaigned for Nader and toward the end of the campaign, Gore was co-opting the campaign. Nader is a populist leader; but the news media made a cariacature out of him, then believed their own b.s.

Gore lost for himself; he even lost his home state. And looking at the funny business in Florida and with Jeb Bush and Fox News, it seems amazing that scapegoating Nader became "the answer". Says a lot about our simple-minded electorate, imo. Would Gore have kept us out of Iraq? I doubt it. The Patriot Act was on the table and habeus on the decline during the Clinton era. GWB just makes the decline obvious to more people. And that, I think, is a good thing.

That's caricature.

Would Gore have kept us out of Iraq? I doubt it.

That's just bizarre.

Caricature, indeed: of a Nader voter.

The pressure was on Clinton to bomb Iraq. Remember all the no-fly zone stuff in December 1998?

I still have this nagging feeling that the only way to get this country back from the creeps is going to be out on the streets. We'll see.

"The creeps" are those who do not see the world the same way you do. Calling them names like this displays a regrettable lack of respect for diversity.

As to "going out on the streets," you're talking about something like 0.005% of the population. If that small fraction goes "out on the streets" and does something illegal, all they're going to "get back" is a quick trip to jail.

Government officials who love wiretapping and torture are creeps: "An annoyingly unpleasant or repulsive person."

Peaceful demonstrations are legal. Eventually, with the shabby conduct of this administration, the numbers of people who will feel the need to use this option will be much greater than the tiny percentage you cite.

There is no jail space for that many people.

Government officials who love wiretapping and torture are creeps: "An annoyingly unpleasant or repulsive person."

So suppose I said, in response, that government officials who refuse to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda are wimps. Has this exchange gotten us someplace useful?

Ever hear the phrase, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact?"

"So suppose I said, in response, that government officials who refuse to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda are wimps."

Who is "refusing to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda"?

Or are you suggesting that warrantless wiretapping and torture protect us from Al Qaeda? If so, how?

Who is "refusing to do what it takes to protect us from Al Qaeda"?

Or are you suggesting that warrantless wiretapping and torture protect us from Al Qaeda? If so, how?

"Warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls where one end is here in the USA and the other end is an Al Qaeda operative outside the country. You don't want us to listen to calls like that?

Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours. What do you want us to do? Read him his rights? Are the lives in that city more important to protect than the terrorists'? Or aren't they?

We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it.

""Warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls where one end is here in the USA and the other end is an Al Qaeda operative outside the country."

No, "warrantless wiretapping" is the NSA listening to calls WITHOUT A FISA WARRANT.

"You don't want us to listen to calls like that?"

Of course I do. If there is probable cause to believe Al Qaeda is involved in a call, the NSA should have no trouble obtaining a warrant from a secret FISA court, as required by an obscure little law called THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. They can even do it up to 72 hours after the fact, under the FISA law.

"Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours."

Or, let's say I'm Darth Vader, and you're Obi Wan, and we settle our differences with an epic light saber battle instead of arguing on a blog. You seem to have the real world confused with James Bond and "24," spinning fantasy scenarios as a justification for torturing everyone the government deems a "terrorist." Surely you know that torture is an ineffective means of obtaining accurate information, since the torturee will say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop. Ask John McCain. Or do you just want to torture for fun? Have a good time, but keep in mind that China will have the moral high ground to do the same to you when you're captured.

"What do you want us to do?"

Abide by the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, rather than peeing our pants in fear of Muslim terrorists and throwing all our principles out the door.

"We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it."

We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S."

"We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S.""

Well said.

"You don't want us to listen to calls like that?"

Of course I do. If there is probable cause to believe Al Qaeda is involved in a call, the NSA should have no trouble obtaining a warrant from a secret FISA court, as required by an obscure little law called THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. They can even do it up to 72 hours after the fact, under the FISA law.

This was being done (and is still being done, thank God) by the NSA. Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards.

"Or, let's say we catch a terrorist who knows where a nuke is hidden in an American city, about to go off in a few hours."

< deleted irrelevant lame attempt at sarcasm >

Surely you know that torture is an ineffective means of obtaining accurate information, since the torturee will say whatever he thinks the torturer wants to hear in order to make it stop.

I hear people saying this a lot, but it seems to be based only on what they want to believe. What's your evidence for believing this? My guess is you don't have any.

Or do you just want to torture for fun?

This kind of nastiness is totally unnecessary and reflects badly on your character. What I want to do is protect American lives from the terrorists. And if the terrorists create a situation where either it's either them or innocent Americans that will get hurt, I choose the terorists.

Have a good time, but keep in mind that China will have the moral high ground to do the same to you when you're captured.

China doesn't need no stinking "moral high ground." China's not worried about that. But China's a nation, and they want their soldiers treated well, and they will reciprocate if we do the same.

What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?

"We are protected from Al Qaeda when we find out what they are trying to do before they do it, and can prevent them from doing it."

We don't need illegal wiretapping or torture to accomplish these goals, just a president who pays attention to memos with titles like "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE INSIDE THE U.S."

First off, that memo did not say where or when this "strike" was supposed to occur. There wasn't a whole lot to act on there. Bin Laden had been determined to strike us since he issued his charmingly-titled "Fatwa Against Jews And Crusaders" sometime in the late 1990's.

And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know? Offhand, I don't see a reason to recognize you as an authority about how to fight this war.

"Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards."

So Bush can just do whatever the heck he wants for the sake of convenience, laws be damned? Sorry, we're actually a nation of LAWS, not men. There is no "practical" exception in the Fourth Amendment or the FISA law; thus, it's an illegal operation. Bush could have sought changes to the FISA law, but instead he ignored the law and wiretapped domestic calls of US citizens without warrants. That is illegal. He also LIED about this in the '04 campaign, when he said: "Whenever you hear the US government use the word 'wiretap', a wiretap requires a court order. We are obeying the constitutional safeguards because we value civil rights." When he said that, he KNEW about the massive warrantless phone wiretaps he was conducting. "Creep" is a polite description of him. And why is such a "massively computerized operation" necessary? Al Qaeda cannot possibly be having contact with each of the millions whose phones were tapped.

"I hear people saying this a lot, but it seems to be based only on what they want to believe. What's your evidence for believing this? My guess is you don't have any."

You guess wrong. I believe this based on the statements of air force and army colonels who served in Vietnam and Iraq. See link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

What's your evidence for believing torture produces accurate intelligence?

"What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?"

So we should follow Al Qaeda's lead and reject the Geneva Conventions too? I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Al Qaeda.

"First off, that memo did not say where or when this "strike" was supposed to occur. There wasn't a whole lot to act on there."

But Bush didn't act at all on Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He didn't retaliate for the USS Cole. He didn't hold a single meeting with his anti-terrorism task force before 9/11, even though Dick Clark and George Tenet had their hair on fire all summer, and specifically warned Condi about the 9/11 plans on 7/10/01 (See Bob Woodward's new book). Bush could have demanded daily updates in tracking Bin Laden's activities and diligently followed the CIA's progress. Instead, he spent another month in Crawford, the longest vacation ever of a sitting president. "Creep" is accurate.

"And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know?"

Because we have never needed illegal wiretapping or torture to win the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, etc. Unlike you, I don't place "the terrorists" on some lofty pedestal as the most powerful enemy the US has ever faced. They're not. But we give them an important victory when we cede the moral high ground and sink to their level.

"Which means that it's quite likely to be a massively computerized operation in which it is not practical to get these FISA warrants, not even 72 hours afterwards."

So Bush can just do whatever the heck he wants for the sake of convenience, laws be damned? Sorry, we're actually a nation of LAWS, not men. There is no "practical" exception in the Fourth Amendment or the FISA law; thus, it's an illegal operation.

That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. And I'm hoping they give weight to the principle that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Bush could have sought changes to the FISA law, but instead he ignored the law and wiretapped domestic calls of US citizens without warrants. That is illegal.

We'll see what the court says.

And why is such a "massively computerized operation" necessary? Al Qaeda cannot possibly be having contact with each of the millions whose phones were tapped.

You have no way of knowing how many calls were tapped, or even why they were tapped.

I believe this based on the statements of air force and army colonels who served in Vietnam and Iraq. See link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

Interesting. But not convincing. Applebaum is a liberal reporter and the Wa. Post is a liberal paper. And even in that article, there are clearly differences of opinion among those doing interrogations.

What's your evidence for believing torture produces accurate intelligence?

You're the one making the assertion that "torture never produces useful information." Therefore you are the one who needs to show evidence. I'm willing to believe that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

"What does Al Qaeda do with their captives? They cut their heads off live on TV. Al Qaeda does this regardless of what we might or might not do to captured terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. You think Al Qaeda's going to sign up for the Geneva Conventions?"

So we should follow Al Qaeda's lead and reject the Geneva Conventions too? I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than Al Qaeda.

This was my answer to your point that if we don't treat prisoners well, how can we expect our adversaries to treat prisoners well? I was pointing out that Al Qaeda is not going to be influenced by how we treat prisoners, given Al Qaeda's oft-demonstrated depraved disregard for human life.

I think we should hold ourselves to the highest standard that's consistent with victory. And no higher.

But Bush didn't act at all on Bin Laden prior to 9/11. He didn't retaliate for the USS Cole.

The whole country was asleep at the wheel prior to 9/11. The USS Cole was struck on 10/12/2000. Bill Clinton was President at that time, not George Bush.

Instead, he spent another month in Crawford, the longest vacation ever of a sitting president. "Creep" is accurate.

Bush-hatred is not a policy.

"And then you assert what we don't need in order to fight the terrorists. And I ask again, how do you know?"

Because we have never needed illegal wiretapping or torture to win the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, etc.

Wiretapping was not possible during the Revolutionary War.

I don't know why you're so sure we didn't do anything you'd disapprove of in WW II. We interned a lot of Japanese back then, just for starters.

Unlike you, I don't place "the terrorists" on some lofty pedestal as the most powerful enemy the US has ever faced.

Unlike you, I don't speculate inaccurately about other folks' motives.

But we give them an important victory when we cede the moral high ground and sink to their level.

We give them victory when we refuse to do what we need to do to win.

"That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you. And I'm hoping they give weight to the principle that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact.""

I'm hoping they give more weight to traditional principles of liberty and freedom that have endured for hundreds of years than to something Richard Posner extracted from his rear end last week.

"We give them victory when we refuse to do what we need to do to win."

You still have not convinced me that warrantless wiretapping and torture are "what we need to do to win." How much time is left on the clock, anyway?

Speaking of "victory," congratulations Speaker Pelosi!

And Mike, the Washington Post is not liberal:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/extremely-odd-behavior-from-washington.html