But wait, you say: Judge Kozinski is crying wolf, the only people with anything to fear are criminals. Actually, Judge Kozinski is one of the most intelligent, technologically savvy people on the bench today. I can only imagine that his co-author & law clerk, Stephanie Grace, is like minded. They mention a case in 2004 where police arrested firefighter Philip Scott Lyons for arson “after discovering he purchased a fire starter with his Safeway Club Card. The charges weren’t dropped until someone else confessed; not everyone will be so lucky.”

I have no qualms about marketers having a better understanding of who I am so that they can target me with more appropriate products. I am greatly concerned about the police–or other people who I have not specifically authorized–accessing the same.

Perhaps it is time for me to update my “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

He called this our Sputnik moment. An apt allusion. America could have crumbled at the challenge presented by the terrifying object launched on 4 October ’57. Instead, the Federal Government created DARPA, the agency that brought us the Internet and GPS.

The President called on the Congress and the American People to face our present challenge with the same conviction and commitment that enabled our grandparents to radically transform the world.

His speech reminded me of his campaign.

Representative Paul Ryan‘s response invoked a different vision of government. According to him, governmental involvement hamstrings private enterprise and only serves to increase the massive debt that my generation will have to pay. Instead we should embrace individual responsibility and pull ourselves up by the bootstrap — it is the American Way.

Both speakers sought to distance themselves from the divisive rhetoric of recent memory. Toning down purely partisan revelry and vindictive sniping did not mean they sought ideological common ground. Sure, it is there: America is in crisis and if we don’t do something, things will get really bad. And they both agree that part of the solution is to cut federal spending.

That’s about it. Try passing that bill through a closely divided Senate, tightly-controlled House whip counts, and a President who has promised to veto anything with earmarks. The sort of bills that pass muster in this environment name Post Offices after President Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, such bills are not even revenue neutral, let alone revenue generating.

Tonight portends a year of logjam and frustrated purpose. The G.O.P. won’t get the smaller government it claims to want (yet always fails to achieve when fully vested on both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.); the President won’t translate his soaring rhetoric into ambitious legislation.

Still, we might get more reasoned debate on the floors of Congress. Not that such talk merits air time in our conflict-driven (sponsor-based) media, but it’s a start.

Veterans Day: a day to celebrate and give thanks to men and women who sacrifice so much on our behalf. In the past nine years, more than two million Americans have deployed overseas. Like generations of soldiers before them, they left spouses, children, friends and family to risk everything to serve our country. Their courage and sacrifice humbles me.

I hope that the President’s calls will lay the groundwork to ensure that our Veterans have the support and resources that they deserve: before, during, and after their service. Surely this is an investment we can all support.

Beyond rhetoric, what can you and I do to support the men and woman who have and will continue to sacrifice so much for our country?

Arianna Huffington makes a compelling case for a national day of service.

A phenomenal organization to help make that first step? Mission Serve. Find a service project close by and get involved.

And for rhetoric with an impact? Talk with a veteran. Have a conversation. Saying thank you is a good start, but we could all benefit from building closer communities. I spent this evening learning from a man I greatly admire. After he left the Navy, he joined the fire department where he and his fellow firefighters risked life and limb daily. One of his happiest memories of those days? Cooking with his crew. Tragic? Having to wear a heavy and hot bullet proof vest under his fire suit because some people (and I use this term loosely) found it amusing to take aim at these public servants with firearms. Inspiring? When the city-led by the entire public workforce and joined by residents of all stripes-began taking to the street, block by block, on October 30th to ensure that the senseless and disgusting violence against emergency personnel ceased.

Together, we can make an incredible force for good.

Now that the election is over, I hope that the extremists on both the Right and the Left will stop shouting at each other and begin to work together to build new opportunities for Americans. Senator-elect Toomey said, “We are going to chart a course, we are going to grow this economy, we are going to create jobs, we are going to reduce the debt and the deficit and in the process we are going to create a more promising future for our kids and our grandkids.”

This gives me hope. Hope that some of the incoming Washington leadership understands that the problems America faces will require frank and honest discussions. Difficult discussions. And not just in Washington, but at dinner tables, bus stops, and water coolers around the nation. Every option needs to be on the table — because America is hurting. Not only do we need to address today’s problems, but it is essential that we invest in the future of America.

This election was not a repudiation of the Democratic agenda. This election was a cry for help–any help. I sincerely hope the fresh blood will bring will respectful, responsible discourse to Washington and generate long-term opportunities for Americans.

Senator McConnell’s pledge to kill the President’s agenda and limit the 44th to a single term and Anticipated Speaker Boehner’s uncompromising stance certainly temper my hope. But the rest of the GOP could surprise me. To do any different would repudiate the promises they made to change Washington & get America working.

And if you really want to make your vote count and make our country better today? Convince someone who did not intend to vote with you to the polls today. How?When people say “I’m not political,” it doesn’t mean they don’t care. It means they don’t care to be talked at by patronizing partisans. It means they find all the yelling frustrating. It means they are sick of feeling like someone is lying to them.

I have yet to meet a person who doesn’t care about some issue related to government policy. Politics is local and retail–find their issue, listen to them, and respectfully discuss. You will quickly have an engaged voter on your hands.

I had just this experience while getting ready to go to New Jersey to participate in CNBC‘s Decision 2010 Election Night Coverage. I met a woman and we struck up a conversation. I asked her if she planned on voting tomorrow, and she said no, she “wasn’t very political.” Turns out that she has two daughters in college. That quickly led into a discussion of student loans, economic policies, and strategies for job growth. She was thrilled to learn that the Democrats had passed legislation creating income contingent student loans and public service loan forgiveness. She appreciated talking with me about wrinkles flaws in these programs’ current implementations, and said that she didn’t expect perfection, just progress.

She was quite frustrated when she was told that Rep. Boehner, Sen. McConnell, and the GOP planned to kill the President’s agenda and weren’t going to compromise. When we parted ways, she had taken out her phone to call her daughters and tell them to vote as well.

What brought everyone together? What did the rally mean?It was zeitgeist, manifested. Not a singular meaning, no overarching message. Stewart even acknowledged that he didn’t know. All we are left with are common threads; I took the following examples from my conversations on the Mall: America; facing adversity together; willful ignorance is not Socratic; positivity is healthy, whereas absolutist anger is a disease; and we – me, you, them, and especially we – need more civil discourse and exposure to/respect for opposing views.

I agree, and I urge you to vote reasonably and sanely for the Democrats closest to where you live.

“But wait! That completely contradicts the zeitgeist you just praised.”

No. Voting is a personal, binary choice. Or a binary matrix of options, if multiple candidates are running for a single office. If someone tries to engage in discourse while you vote, please call 1.800.311.VOTE, because they may attempt to illegally influence other voters. Please do not call if the alleged influencer was your toddler.

Moreover, unlike President Obama, for whom “every option is on the table,” John Boehner has said “we’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill [President Obama's Agenda], stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Together, we will retain the prospect of dialog after Tuesday. And I hope to resume discussing complex choices and moving forward together at CNBC’s Decision 2010 (Election Day, November 2nd, 2010, 7-11 ET) In the meantime, Vote. And Vote Democratic.

Update: I was corrected by a friend at dinner. Although you could not hear it from our vantage point, Stewart’s last word was “vote.”

Phew! Glad to learn that the civic opportunity wasn’t overlooked. And while those of us at the rally may not have heard the request, we will. Viewers at home? The encouragement/reminder may help. And that could be the best possible outcome.

Overall impressions: wonderful crowd, happy to talk and open to civil disagreement. The people I met were both excited and engaged.

As far as the show? I couldn’t see much of it (the crowd was gigantic), but I really enjoyed much of what I heard. The content was–for the most part–positive, interesting, and not divisive.

One glaring omission: I don’t think that a single person on stage reminded the crowd to vote! (more later)

What new path? He sees a potential American future driving global innovation, but only if we invest and commit ourselves. “There are solutions, but they are hard and involve painful changes — in companies, government programs and personal lifestyles. For more than a generation, Americans have been unwilling to make these adjustments.” I think he may be overly optimistic.

1. National Sales tax to fund R&D. Absolutely. I would go one step further and say that we should also fund production facilities for tech developed from our R&D. Not doing so puts us at a competitive disadvantage to countries like Germany, China, and India. But the Right won’t let it happen.

2. The tax code, a 16,000 page mess that needs massive simplification (exactly how, no one will agree), and we probably need to ditch corporate taxes. The Left won’t let this come up for discussion.

3. Radical rebalancing of our fiscal house. We need to discuss what we spend and why we spend on our social programs. Should we have a basic safety net? Pensions? Social security? Healthcare? Education (e.g. Pell grants-essential college funding, or an opportunity for schools to jack tuition across the board)?
The Center doesn’t have the stomach for it.

And we need to do something about an education system that leaves us tithing to the Church of Higher Education (at best. At worst, it categorizes parents of dead students  the same as deadbeat dads), subsidizes training of the next generation of Indian and Chinese leadership, and leaves many without the skills they need to be competitive in the global market.

Hard choices need to be made, but how many of us are willing to even have the discussion, let alone follow through on the choices?

Channel that anger. Demand better–not just different–policies from Washington and our State Legislatures.  We will each face a choice on Tuesday, November 2nd.  Democrats offer a vision of a better tomorrow. Republicans offer the same rehashed “pledge,” talking points that haven’t changed in 30 years. But what worked for Dutch won’t work today–instead we’ll find ourselves in the position of the Commies, blowing what remains of our economy on missiles we can’t afford.

Not all change is good change. The GOP offers bad change; examples follow.

You may like your Republican legislators. They might govern competently and well. But to vote for them is to participate in a takeover by the following (work in progress):

Bennet (D) v. Buck (R) – Colorado Senate

Ken Buck doesn’t believe in climate change. That’s a problem. Our future depends upon our ability to respond to this challenge.

Also: Buck would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Bad Change

Strickland (D) v. Kasich (R) – Ohio Governor

John Kasich believes that Ohio can cut its way out of an $8 billion deficit, identifying unnecessary positions and the like. Sure. You can cut $4 billion from the budget through employment cuts. Granted, the total government workforce would be zero. Bad Change.

Hill (D) v. Young (R) – Indiana’s 9th District

Baron Hill supports funding green energy projects. This means domestic jobs. Good jobs. Growth jobs.

Hill supports health care. It is cheaper and will lead to better care.

Young plans to”Reject calls to implement caps on carbon dioxide.” Bad Change.

“A lot of attention has been focused on employment data, and our subcommittee will be proposing much more rigorous requirements,” said David Yellen, dean of Loyola University Chicago School of Law and chairman of the standard 509 subcommittee. “The current standard is very general — you could even call it vague. People have been comparing apples to oranges because schools report what they want.”

For example, schools have to disclose to the ABA what percentage of their graduates are employed nine months after graduation. They don’t have to disclose whether students have part-time jobs, full-time jobs, jobs paid for by their law school or jobs that don’t require a J.D., Yellen said. Much of his information is already collected by the National Association for Law Placement, and should be required and disclosed by the ABA, he said.

Of course, nothing has been adopted and these are merely proposals, but it is welcome news. As with a great many things, disclosure will help people make well-informed decisions. It is reassuring to have a self-regulating industry such as the legal profession start moving in this direction (of course, it would be even better if the Association of American Law Schools or the National Association for Legal Career Professionals came out with their full-throated support.)

What about undergraduate schools? Other graduate programs? President Obama is a huge believer that a well-educated citizenry is essential to our long-term vitality as a nation. A belief that many of us share. But as part of his reform program, ought we not call for more transparency in this vital industry?

If the rest of ‘em won’t self-regulate, ought not Elizabeth Warren get involved?