That's not a bad idea.  Although not voting at least gives one the 'don't blame me--I didn't put the guy in the White House' defense.

" I already feel like a resident alien. Why not make it official? Then maybe the government wouldn't be so interested in my race, ethnicity, religion, gun ownership, sexual orientation, and dialing and internet surfing habits.  And if it meant not having to pay federal income taxes, I could stop supporting Planned Parenthood and other unjust redistributive and idiotic schemes (Cash for Clunkers) imposed by Leviathan."

Unfortunately, being a 'resident alien,' which conveys a legal status generally known as 'having a green card' does not exempt you from paying any taxes, whether federal, state or local.  The government is just as interested in your wallet, and the rest of your parts as it would be if you were a U.S. citizen, and you must carry around with you at all times an additional identity card bearing the clear imprint of your thumb.  

On a (perhaps) brighter note, you would not be able to vote, nor would you ever have to serve on a jury, nor could you run for almost any political office.  And if you were ever convicted of a crime, you'd be immediately deported.

You probably should consider a status that requires less documentation.

Surely the Diversity and Inclusion Specialist is being brought on board to make sure that the IRS never again obviously singles out and targets groups with a particular point of view, as they have determined that, in hindsight, this was a huge mistake. The D&I Specialist will be there to make sure that, in the future, at least the appearance of ecumenism (diversity) and the illusion of fairness (inclusion) exist in future campaigns against those that the IRS is trying to destroy.

Critical mass.

I'm not necessarily sympathetic to Snowden.  I don't know enough facts about the case to know exactly what he has and hasn't done, and I don't expect I ever will.

On the other hand, having spent most of my life not only being related to, but also working with and supervising, unconventional, bright, sometimes incredibly weird, asocial and antisocial, IT security geeks, I don't start with a  prejudice that he must acting from malice simply because he is one.  

And the hostility that's being displayed towards them (geeks, sysadmins) as a group, from all sides, surprises me.

A sign of green desperation, or are they trying to prove that big oil is even more evil than we knew?

Neither, really.  They are trying to 'prove' that the sort of people (bitter clinging Neanderthals--read, people who are 'not like us,' read 'Republicans') who move to places, like the Dakotas and Montana, in order to find work and perhaps escape some of the more onerous burdens of the welfare state, are drunken, abusive pigs who drag their women around behind them by their hair.  And in the present political climate, and given the terms of their mission (I really like the parenthetical 'if any'), they will probably succeed.

And they will start a new and distracting debate in which the talking heads and politicians-for-life like Jeb Bush will be put on the defensive and will, as usual, assemble into a circle and start firing. 

They won't even have to mention 'global warming,' or 'Big Oil.'  

What Devereaux and Curious John said. I am sorry.

Oh, please, can't we offend France, just this once?  Please?

What was it the Maggie the Great said, something like, "I cheer up immensely when someone says something particularly wounding, because if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." Yes, something like that. If Snowden is to be debunked and exposed (which may be an appropriate course of action), those declaiming against him really need to raise the level of their discourse. Most of these arguments are absurd.

It is stories like this that convince me we have reached a point where satire is no longer possible.

Just read the link provided by Mike in State College to the Telegraph blog debunking Snowden. In my view, the money quote in it is "none of this debunks, outright, Snowden's claims . . ."Well, OK then. The only fact presented seems to be that according to his employer, Snowden's salary was less than he said it was. Maybe he was including benefits. The rest is innuendo and speculation. I think the debunkers will have to do better. I do wonder, though. If Snowden is fully debunked, is he still a traitor?

I've just looked at about the top 20 stories on Google news.  Couldn't find one debunking Snowden.  Found ones calling him a traitor (WaPo must think he's telling the truth), and ones calling him a patriot (Daniel Ellsberg, for heaven's sake).

Then I finally got to the headline "NSA director calls Snowden's claim about total wiretapping 'false.'

Apparently General Keith Alexander says he 'knows of no way to do that.'

Is that the extent of the debunkery, or is there more?

Although, I have to ask,  "what difference, at this point, does it make?"

Dr Rahe,

You say that the scandal has been brewing for 'more than half a century.'  And you cite things getting worse from the 1970's onwards.

Much as it pains me to say it (having graduated from high school in 1972), the early seventies were almost half a century ago.

So, when and where do you believe that the roots of this scandal actually did start to grow?

I should say, I read your previous post, and you do allude to some earlier incidents, but I didn't get the impression you were talking about an endemic situation.  What changed?  Was it just the effects of the 1960's sexual revolution?

They should charge Mr Smith with Extraordinarily Bad Taste and prosecute him for that.

The hymn book of my childhood was "Hymns Ancient and Modern, Revised."  I understand it's now called "Hymns and Songs for Refreshing Worship," which probably makes it suitable for what one of my late friends used to call 'The Church of God, My Buddy.'

Sic transit gloria mundi.

So, the vast middle is 'coalescing' around Obama, just as planned?

I think then, it's much more comforting to speculate that that's happening as a result of a string of Machiavellian, out of our control, machinations from the other side than to acknowledge that it's happening because our own are so busy with the circular firing squad that they are incapable of gaining any traction in the face of what seems to be a series of never-ending opportunities to knock down the political, and social, opposition.

Strikes me the Republican 'leadership,' and much of the conservative fourth-estate needs a crash course on the things they cannot change, the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.  Some lessons in (moral) courage probably wouldn't hurt either.