Well, I'm for privacy protection and all and for the record, I don't like the idea of a national ID.

But your delightfully humurous and satirical story didn't try to hammer us over the head with a point. Unlike the ACLU ad, which first of all, isn't very good and then goes on to tell you what to think. Something you, Eric, did not do.

So, no I don't think they've been reading the Gazette. Too bad they didn't. Maybe the ACLU would discover that Thinking Is Allowed.

Hey, guys, this ain't too damn funny!

Eric is, of course, but the site gave me the vapors. If this is all true, ole Mr. Orwell is jumping up and down saying, "I told you, I told you, I told you."

Jim, you need to cut the ACLU some slack. They're not very good at humor because, frankly, they haven't had any practice. Maybe they'll get better at it. ;-)

Pattie, if you're really worried about who's accumulating what data about you, you might want to give up blogging. The perceptive researcher can build an amazing portfolio based on a history of posts from most of us blabbermouthed (blabberfingered?) bloggers. That's not to minimize the seriousness of institutionalized snooping and manipulation, of course, but the best way to keep from being victimized by The System is to never get into The System to begin with. And it's too late for most of us.

The ACLU deserves some slack when they finally show some pretense of genuinely non-partisan criticism.

Instead it's business as usual, dumping on "the Bush Administration". Yep, everything Dubya's fault these days, including the weather.

Heh. As if voting for a Democrat in '08 is going to suddenly provide instant privacy for everyone. How conveniently they forget the totalitarian advances during the Clinton years. It's as if the names "Janet Reno" and "Louis Freeh" have been struck from the ACLU's collective memory.

Hillary Clinton was advocating a national "health" ID card as far back as 1993. The "Clipper" mandatory spy chip project goes back even further, being developed by the government during the term of Dubya's daddy and then further promoted by the Clintons.

Constant surveillance has been a fact of life for a long time now. Dubya is just pushing us down a slope paved during the last three administrations and his successor will continue to do so, regardless of their party affiliation. Buying a firearm these days gives a person a whole new appreciation for intrusive, invasive, and frighteningly comprehensive government databases.

But why stop there? The private sector isn't any better with relentless "consumer data mining." Count how many "security" cameras are monitoring you in an urban environment. Now triple that number for the ones you don't see.

Like those pastoral scenes in 1984, the only time I'm certain that I'm not being recorded on somebody's surveillance camera is when I'm deep in the woods.

...well, not anymore.

Ever get the feeling that if you start to scream you won't be able to stop?

The only slack I propose to cut the ACLU is if and when they start trying to develop a sense of humor. I'm not holding my breath.

The privacy issues you raise are another example of how we want to have our cake and eat it too. As consumers, we like the convenience of personalized service and attention, but we seldom stop to consider the price required to get it. We can argue that we should be able to have the former without the latter, but human nature dictates to the contrary. Anything that can be used can be abused...and history shows that it almost always will be.