Tuesday, August 07, 2007
One last attempt at reason
This post is a test. You see, I've read Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. And I want to see if any other readers of that book have heeded its lessons. Otherwise, further discussion is pointless, democracy is doomed, and I might as well spend my remaining days "air conducting" Bruckner.
To be specific: Let's see if people are capable of reasoned debate on the new FISA amendment, more properly known as S1927 or the Protect America Act.
Reason, alas, seems a scarce commodity in these times of boiling blood. Yesterday, Randi Rhodes had a caller who insisted that the passage of this act meant that Democrats should get rid of Harry Reid as Senate leader and replace him with Jim Webb. This, despite the fact that Reid voted against the bill and Webb voted for it!
(I hate being in the same party with such dimwits. That caller's reaction was pure Daddyism: Webb looks and sounds more like a Daddy than Reid does.)
Now, I cite that example because it represents a widespread reaction. Over at D.U., MadFloridian has proven to be one of the few observers who gets it: He points the finger at the Blue Dogs. Nearly everyone else screams for the blood of Nancy Pelosi, even though her performance has been beyond reproach.
She voted against the bill. She tried to have it rewritten. She called it an assault on the Constitution.
And even though the bill is a stop-gap measure, designed to last a mere six months, she has asked John Conyers to fight to have it overturned or amended one month from now, as soon as Congress returns from recess.
What more could she do?
Randi Rhodes suggested that the act could have been held up in the House Rules Committee. But any such attempt would have been foolish and dangerous.
Even Russ Feingold admitted that something was required -- on an emergency basis -- after a court had struck down the NSA's ability to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications routed through U.S. telecommunications servers. I agree with Feingold. Look, there really are terrorists in this world, and if Known Terrorist A in Dubai chats with Known Terrorist B in Indonesia, I don't think the NSA should consider their communications inviolate simply because they decide to use AOL.
So something needed to be done.
Unfortunately, the amendment to FISA went too far.
Having said that, I must also note that many of the Act's critics have pretended to an expertise they do not possess. Let's have a show of hands: How many of you have actually read the law?
One of the most egregious rabble-rousers, I am sorry to say, was Larisa Alexandrovna. It's no secret that I think that she is just about the best journalist around right now. (Every guy has a personal list of Women Worthy of a Crush; I place Larisa somewhere between Anne Sophie-Mutter and Jennifer Connelly.) But her piece "It's official, we are police state" is inexcusable, and not just on grammatical grounds:
Ah, I see that the Groucho-ized duck has descended from the ceiling. "Da secret woid is foreign."
The act refers to foreign surveillance -- and like or not, the Attorney General has been the key figure in that act since 1978. The AG has always been the one deciding on cases of warrant-free eavesdropping.
(Don't take my word for it. Look it up: 50 U.S.C. sect;1802(a)(1) and 50 U.S.C. sect;1802(a)(3).)
Despite the yelling and screaming you have heard, the current amendment does not greatly change the AG's role. Janet Reno had much the same power. The only difference is that Reno was trustworthy and Gonzales is a snake.
If you want to read the actual statute, go here. If you want to read the amendment -- the Protect America Thingie -- go here. You have to read them together, for reasons that will soon become apparent.
Yeah, I know: That's a lot of homework. But isn't it better to discuss an actual text, as opposed to dealing with a series of vague impressions gathered at third-hand from a gaggle of impassioned screamers?
Like it or not, we've known for a long time that the American intelligence community scoops up all sorts of foreign communications -- legally. Hipper folks have known that our spies routinely trade information with British intelligence and other services in order to bypass FISA regulations. The Brits are the ones spying on us, and there aint' nothin' Congress can do about it.
Few people understand that, under the 1978 law, American intelligence was not allowed to conduct warrant-free eavesdropping on terrorists. That part of the original FISA law was really directed at the intelligence services of foreign governments.
So what does the new amendment actually do?
Let's be candid. My eyes lost focus trying to read that text, and so will yours. Betcha dollars to donuts that the Congressfolk who passed the thing didn't read it very carefully.
If you read the 2007 Act without reference to the 1978 original, you will come away with the impression that nothing in it applies in any way to United States citizens. I am sure that the Senators and House members who voted on the thing were rather surprised to hear from angry constituents who thought otherwise. Many Democrats have been led to believe that the new law grants Gonzales the freedom to read every piece of email generated by the ACLU, the local PTA, and the Loyal Order of the Moose.
Legal experts disagree on the ramifications. I'm hardly an expert, just a citizen. Here are the problems as one citizen sees them:
1. The scope of permitted warrant-free eavesdropping is widened. The target is no longer the KGB or the Chinese Public Security Bureau; the target is now any non-U.S. person.
Nothing in the new law stipulates that the target needs to be engaged in terrorism or anti-U.S. activity.
2. Although nothing in the Act permits scooping up information on U.S. persons without a warrant, the wording may allow for just that -- in a roundabout fashion. Here is where expert opinion seems to be divided.
Basically, Sec. 105B. (a) -- that's the new bit -- allows the Director of National Intelligence and the AG to demand records from ISPs and other telecommunications providers, under certain circumstances. The records must pertain to a foreigner. The DNI is supposed to present evidence to the FISA court that the target really is foreign.
The scooping is supposed to be done according to "minimization procedures" under "section 101(h)." What the hell does that mean? Ay, there's the rub!
(When you check out the 1978 Act, you'll find that these procedures are actually listed under 1801(h). Many of the bill's critics didn't bother to look this up.)
Minimization addresses an obvious problem: What happens when a foreign national is in communication with a U.S. citizen? Take, for example, your phone sex sessions with that French lass you met online. The new law allows the DNI to get all records of those steamy chats from the IRC server or cell phone provider.
Here is where the concept of minimization comes in. The following is from the original law, the one we've all lived with for the past 29 years. Try to not let you eyes glaze over; you should actually read this:
Needless to say, any US-foreign chat can lead to further eavesdropping on the US citizen -- with a court order. If no order appears, then all data involving the U.S. person should disappear within 72 hours. That's the law.
The problem here, as I see it, is that too much relies on one person's judgment. And we simply do not trust the judgment of this AG. Frankly, we should not place this much trust in any AG.
All of which leads us to problem numero three-o:
3. The act puts telecoms and ISPs in a rotten position. In essence, they will be asked to give up records on foreign and domestic customers -- if those citizens have chatted with any foreigners lately.
Ever call customer assistance? You talked to a guy in India, didn't you?
I do not believe that ISPs want to do this.
In the end: The Protect America Act is not the Orwellian horror many have led you to believe. But I still consider it bad law, and I have a few provisional ideas on how to fix it:
1. Create some sensible restrictions regarding which foreigners may be targeted. Allowing the DNI and the AG to go after everyone outside this country is insane. Right now, the law says that the DNI may grab the data trail of anyone who may possess "foreign intelligence information." Hell, that phrase could apply to a guy running an ice cream parlor in Naples.
2. Define "minimization" more stringently. Since we now have the unhappy experience of living with an untrustworthy Attorney General -- and since at least half the country is bound to mistrust anyone holding that position in future years -- we need to make sure than any data involving innocent U.S. citizens really is destroyed within three days, as the law requires.
Frankly, I don't know how this can be accomplished. 1978 tech ain't 2007 tech. Nowadays, data has a habit of hanging around forever.
3. Strengthen oversight. Every time the DNI and the AG interact in any way with the telecoms, they should provide a full record to a FISA court and the permanent Congressional intelligence committees. Perhaps the public should be allowed to know what was done, in a very general way. The Protect America Act does have oversight provisions, but they are, in my view, far too weak.
I'm not sure how to address the legitimate complaints of the telecom providers.
Even so, if Pelosi, Conyers and Reid offer these fixes, then this is a law I could live with.
Alas, in such heated times, fixing the problem may not fix the problem. Democrats will probably still scream for Pelosi's head. One cannot argue with a mob. And that is precisely the right word to describe the current anti-Democratic pseudo-progressives: They are a mob.
Here's my question to the "progressive" mobsters: To what use did you people put Al Gore's book? Did you tear out pages for butcher paper?
One last point: If you step back from the legal minutia and take a more Olympian overview, you'll see the Grand Joke underlying this whole discussion. The Bush administration argues that it is not bound by FISA, amended or not. If American spooks want info on (say) an American anti-war group, they can always ask the Brits -- as they have done for 29 years. And if I correctly understand what Russell Tice and others have said, the NSA's current abilities go way, way beyond anything addressed by even the most current manifestation of the FISA Act.
To be specific: Let's see if people are capable of reasoned debate on the new FISA amendment, more properly known as S1927 or the Protect America Act.
Reason, alas, seems a scarce commodity in these times of boiling blood. Yesterday, Randi Rhodes had a caller who insisted that the passage of this act meant that Democrats should get rid of Harry Reid as Senate leader and replace him with Jim Webb. This, despite the fact that Reid voted against the bill and Webb voted for it!
(I hate being in the same party with such dimwits. That caller's reaction was pure Daddyism: Webb looks and sounds more like a Daddy than Reid does.)
Now, I cite that example because it represents a widespread reaction. Over at D.U., MadFloridian has proven to be one of the few observers who gets it: He points the finger at the Blue Dogs. Nearly everyone else screams for the blood of Nancy Pelosi, even though her performance has been beyond reproach.
She voted against the bill. She tried to have it rewritten. She called it an assault on the Constitution.
And even though the bill is a stop-gap measure, designed to last a mere six months, she has asked John Conyers to fight to have it overturned or amended one month from now, as soon as Congress returns from recess.
What more could she do?
Randi Rhodes suggested that the act could have been held up in the House Rules Committee. But any such attempt would have been foolish and dangerous.
Even Russ Feingold admitted that something was required -- on an emergency basis -- after a court had struck down the NSA's ability to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications routed through U.S. telecommunications servers. I agree with Feingold. Look, there really are terrorists in this world, and if Known Terrorist A in Dubai chats with Known Terrorist B in Indonesia, I don't think the NSA should consider their communications inviolate simply because they decide to use AOL.
So something needed to be done.
Unfortunately, the amendment to FISA went too far.
Having said that, I must also note that many of the Act's critics have pretended to an expertise they do not possess. Let's have a show of hands: How many of you have actually read the law?
One of the most egregious rabble-rousers, I am sorry to say, was Larisa Alexandrovna. It's no secret that I think that she is just about the best journalist around right now. (Every guy has a personal list of Women Worthy of a Crush; I place Larisa somewhere between Anne Sophie-Mutter and Jennifer Connelly.) But her piece "It's official, we are police state" is inexcusable, and not just on grammatical grounds:
Make NO mistake, we are in serious peril when an Attorney General who has subverted the Constitution per request of his boss, lied, obstructed justice, and defended torture, is now in full authority to declare who is going to be a target of warrant-less surveillance.Larisa, Larisa...! You speak as though this act is directed against all American dissenters. The current measure is an amendment to the FISA act of 1978. Do you know what the "F" in FISA stands for? The answer is here.
Ah, I see that the Groucho-ized duck has descended from the ceiling. "Da secret woid is foreign."
The act refers to foreign surveillance -- and like or not, the Attorney General has been the key figure in that act since 1978. The AG has always been the one deciding on cases of warrant-free eavesdropping.
(Don't take my word for it. Look it up: 50 U.S.C. sect;1802(a)(1) and 50 U.S.C. sect;1802(a)(3).)
Despite the yelling and screaming you have heard, the current amendment does not greatly change the AG's role. Janet Reno had much the same power. The only difference is that Reno was trustworthy and Gonzales is a snake.
If you want to read the actual statute, go here. If you want to read the amendment -- the Protect America Thingie -- go here. You have to read them together, for reasons that will soon become apparent.
Yeah, I know: That's a lot of homework. But isn't it better to discuss an actual text, as opposed to dealing with a series of vague impressions gathered at third-hand from a gaggle of impassioned screamers?
Like it or not, we've known for a long time that the American intelligence community scoops up all sorts of foreign communications -- legally. Hipper folks have known that our spies routinely trade information with British intelligence and other services in order to bypass FISA regulations. The Brits are the ones spying on us, and there aint' nothin' Congress can do about it.
Few people understand that, under the 1978 law, American intelligence was not allowed to conduct warrant-free eavesdropping on terrorists. That part of the original FISA law was really directed at the intelligence services of foreign governments.
So what does the new amendment actually do?
Let's be candid. My eyes lost focus trying to read that text, and so will yours. Betcha dollars to donuts that the Congressfolk who passed the thing didn't read it very carefully.
If you read the 2007 Act without reference to the 1978 original, you will come away with the impression that nothing in it applies in any way to United States citizens. I am sure that the Senators and House members who voted on the thing were rather surprised to hear from angry constituents who thought otherwise. Many Democrats have been led to believe that the new law grants Gonzales the freedom to read every piece of email generated by the ACLU, the local PTA, and the Loyal Order of the Moose.
Legal experts disagree on the ramifications. I'm hardly an expert, just a citizen. Here are the problems as one citizen sees them:
1. The scope of permitted warrant-free eavesdropping is widened. The target is no longer the KGB or the Chinese Public Security Bureau; the target is now any non-U.S. person.
Nothing in the new law stipulates that the target needs to be engaged in terrorism or anti-U.S. activity.
2. Although nothing in the Act permits scooping up information on U.S. persons without a warrant, the wording may allow for just that -- in a roundabout fashion. Here is where expert opinion seems to be divided.
Basically, Sec. 105B. (a) -- that's the new bit -- allows the Director of National Intelligence and the AG to demand records from ISPs and other telecommunications providers, under certain circumstances. The records must pertain to a foreigner. The DNI is supposed to present evidence to the FISA court that the target really is foreign.
The scooping is supposed to be done according to "minimization procedures" under "section 101(h)." What the hell does that mean? Ay, there's the rub!
(When you check out the 1978 Act, you'll find that these procedures are actually listed under 1801(h). Many of the bill's critics didn't bother to look this up.)
Minimization addresses an obvious problem: What happens when a foreign national is in communication with a U.S. citizen? Take, for example, your phone sex sessions with that French lass you met online. The new law allows the DNI to get all records of those steamy chats from the IRC server or cell phone provider.
Here is where the concept of minimization comes in. The following is from the original law, the one we've all lived with for the past 29 years. Try to not let you eyes glaze over; you should actually read this:
(h) "Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means -And:
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons...
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person's consent, unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;The exception: If the intercepted communication picks up discussion of a crime or planned crime, all bets are off. Thus, if your phone sex session with that French lass segues into a discussion of the best way to kill her hated mother, the DNI can contact both the French cops and the American cops.
Needless to say, any US-foreign chat can lead to further eavesdropping on the US citizen -- with a court order. If no order appears, then all data involving the U.S. person should disappear within 72 hours. That's the law.
The problem here, as I see it, is that too much relies on one person's judgment. And we simply do not trust the judgment of this AG. Frankly, we should not place this much trust in any AG.
All of which leads us to problem numero three-o:
3. The act puts telecoms and ISPs in a rotten position. In essence, they will be asked to give up records on foreign and domestic customers -- if those citizens have chatted with any foreigners lately.
Ever call customer assistance? You talked to a guy in India, didn't you?
I do not believe that ISPs want to do this.
In the end: The Protect America Act is not the Orwellian horror many have led you to believe. But I still consider it bad law, and I have a few provisional ideas on how to fix it:
1. Create some sensible restrictions regarding which foreigners may be targeted. Allowing the DNI and the AG to go after everyone outside this country is insane. Right now, the law says that the DNI may grab the data trail of anyone who may possess "foreign intelligence information." Hell, that phrase could apply to a guy running an ice cream parlor in Naples.
2. Define "minimization" more stringently. Since we now have the unhappy experience of living with an untrustworthy Attorney General -- and since at least half the country is bound to mistrust anyone holding that position in future years -- we need to make sure than any data involving innocent U.S. citizens really is destroyed within three days, as the law requires.
Frankly, I don't know how this can be accomplished. 1978 tech ain't 2007 tech. Nowadays, data has a habit of hanging around forever.
3. Strengthen oversight. Every time the DNI and the AG interact in any way with the telecoms, they should provide a full record to a FISA court and the permanent Congressional intelligence committees. Perhaps the public should be allowed to know what was done, in a very general way. The Protect America Act does have oversight provisions, but they are, in my view, far too weak.
I'm not sure how to address the legitimate complaints of the telecom providers.
Even so, if Pelosi, Conyers and Reid offer these fixes, then this is a law I could live with.
Alas, in such heated times, fixing the problem may not fix the problem. Democrats will probably still scream for Pelosi's head. One cannot argue with a mob. And that is precisely the right word to describe the current anti-Democratic pseudo-progressives: They are a mob.
Here's my question to the "progressive" mobsters: To what use did you people put Al Gore's book? Did you tear out pages for butcher paper?
One last point: If you step back from the legal minutia and take a more Olympian overview, you'll see the Grand Joke underlying this whole discussion. The Bush administration argues that it is not bound by FISA, amended or not. If American spooks want info on (say) an American anti-war group, they can always ask the Brits -- as they have done for 29 years. And if I correctly understand what Russell Tice and others have said, the NSA's current abilities go way, way beyond anything addressed by even the most current manifestation of the FISA Act.
Joseph,
Thanks again for being the voice of reason and clearing up a lot of the fog that has rolled in as a result of the passage of this bill.
Sadly, it appears that, yet again, the knee-jerkers are opening fire on the Democrats with extreme prejudice...even though the _majority_ of Dems voted against this bill. And no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do, it seems they cannot win. They vote against this and stand against it and STILL they are pummelled by the PPs.
The fact that so many are getting the facts wrong is disturbing enough. What is even worse is that, once again, the true foes walk away unharmed. Check out the top liberal/progressive sites and notice that the majority of the articles on this manner rain down hellfire on Democrats...and say nothing about the Republicans.
The overwhelming majority of Repubs voted for this. The majority of Repubs have rubber-stamped EVERYTHING this horror of an administration pushed. So why is no one, to quote R. Lee Ermey from FULL METAL JACKET, "stomping their guts out"? Where is the rightous anger from the top Progressive/Liberal writers? Why are the Democrats the ones bashed and beaten while the real fiends get away?
Why are we ALWAYS shooting at the wrong target?
Thanks again for being the voice of reason and clearing up a lot of the fog that has rolled in as a result of the passage of this bill.
Sadly, it appears that, yet again, the knee-jerkers are opening fire on the Democrats with extreme prejudice...even though the _majority_ of Dems voted against this bill. And no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do, it seems they cannot win. They vote against this and stand against it and STILL they are pummelled by the PPs.
The fact that so many are getting the facts wrong is disturbing enough. What is even worse is that, once again, the true foes walk away unharmed. Check out the top liberal/progressive sites and notice that the majority of the articles on this manner rain down hellfire on Democrats...and say nothing about the Republicans.
The overwhelming majority of Repubs voted for this. The majority of Repubs have rubber-stamped EVERYTHING this horror of an administration pushed. So why is no one, to quote R. Lee Ermey from FULL METAL JACKET, "stomping their guts out"? Where is the rightous anger from the top Progressive/Liberal writers? Why are the Democrats the ones bashed and beaten while the real fiends get away?
Why are we ALWAYS shooting at the wrong target?
I think they could have used a well established Repub tactic and not let it come to the floor until after recess; then used it to open the can of "impeachments".
"I agree with Feingold. Look, there really are terrorists in this world"...
Ahem, yes, so that's why so much effort has been spent securing ports and borders, and let us not forget, the all encompassing airline security "theater".
Your apologias have become, well, weird, to say the least. The current administration will manipulate the language of any law to justify their ends. Should that not work, they just avoid the law anyway, but better to stretch the meaning of an existing law, and better that it has some bi-partisan support.
I really do believe that you would've justified the Enabling Acts.
Incidentally, I'm not a Google/Blogger, so, to satisfy your paranoia-
SeamusAndrewMurphy@yahoo.com
Ahem, yes, so that's why so much effort has been spent securing ports and borders, and let us not forget, the all encompassing airline security "theater".
Your apologias have become, well, weird, to say the least. The current administration will manipulate the language of any law to justify their ends. Should that not work, they just avoid the law anyway, but better to stretch the meaning of an existing law, and better that it has some bi-partisan support.
I really do believe that you would've justified the Enabling Acts.
Incidentally, I'm not a Google/Blogger, so, to satisfy your paranoia-
SeamusAndrewMurphy@yahoo.com
"Enabling acts." Yeah, right. Russ Feingold: Nazi bastard.
Well, I should disclose all. He DID once buy me a bowl of Minestrone soup at a meeting with various bloggers. And if I had known he was picking up the check, I would have ordered something a lot fancier.
Well, I should disclose all. He DID once buy me a bowl of Minestrone soup at a meeting with various bloggers. And if I had known he was picking up the check, I would have ordered something a lot fancier.
Joseph,
This is indeed a sensible and reasoned approach, and thanks for it.
But I have read a number of writers and commenters who have placed the blame squarely where it belongs, on the so called blue dog or whatever dems who consistently tend to vote against the rest of the party. I think many people get that, but blaming the Democrats as a group has become an unfortunate shorthand. I live in Ohio and people seem to recognize that Sherrod Brown is one of the good guys, and that Charlie Wilson and Zach Space (who normally isn't in that group) screwed up. Wilson, by the way, gave a pathetic response which I've posted at my site.
But the pressure from angry Dems is important. Certainly misguided anger is not helpful. But anger lets representatives know that we're paying attention and that we care about these issues.
I hope your readers continue to call and write their representatives about this issue.
This is indeed a sensible and reasoned approach, and thanks for it.
But I have read a number of writers and commenters who have placed the blame squarely where it belongs, on the so called blue dog or whatever dems who consistently tend to vote against the rest of the party. I think many people get that, but blaming the Democrats as a group has become an unfortunate shorthand. I live in Ohio and people seem to recognize that Sherrod Brown is one of the good guys, and that Charlie Wilson and Zach Space (who normally isn't in that group) screwed up. Wilson, by the way, gave a pathetic response which I've posted at my site.
But the pressure from angry Dems is important. Certainly misguided anger is not helpful. But anger lets representatives know that we're paying attention and that we care about these issues.
I hope your readers continue to call and write their representatives about this issue.
Joe, Rachmaninoff is much better to vent your frustrations with. However, you might find a better life if you didn't insist on challenging all who disagree with you. I know, better than most, that old habits are hard to jettison. I know that betrayal by a special person you've admired (aka Larisa) can be devastating. But you seem to delight in disagreeing with DU. Fahgetaboutem! You are quite capable of laying out your argument in a quite logical and thoughtful way. That's why we all keep coming back. You don't need to tell us DU sucks because, quite frankly, most of us don't check in with them anyway. They are underground, after all.
Yeah, Randi can get a bit hysterical from time to time. But she does it for a point. That doesn't mean all her listeners get it. Today (altho I could only hear part of her program) she said that "someone" was circulating rumors around DC that there was going to be a terrorist attack on DC any day and that they had to get outta town. The capitol police were suddenly everywhere as if to reinforce the rumor. So (I think) we had a little staging of a terror attack potential to blackmail the congress. It worked. Just like the anthrax "attacks," which (even I noticed at the time) managed to hit only democrats. (Well, except for some poor old lady who got caught in the crossfire.) And, wonder of wonders, no one has been caught and apparently no one is even looking, because of course, "they" know who did it. It came from government stocks of anthrax. Soon as that tidbit came out, suddenly no one was looking for the 'anthraxer' any more.
Now, I think it possible that there are many unanswered questions about the 'use and administration' of the FISA act and as amended. Why wouldn't Ashcroft nor Comey okay what Bushco wanted to do? What was so aberrant that these two solid republicans refused to go along? Why are appeals court judges denying Bushco the actions they want to carry out? How does the wording of the act passed Saturday enable spying that they couldn't do before? And I don't mean the internet or the companies involved. Are they data mining? Are they spying on political opponents? Are they tracking all the peace protesters? Well, we just don't know, because the liar Gonzo is in charge for the liar Bush and his liar buddy Darth.
You bring up the possibility of a call to your French sex caller. But what if that is used to blackmail someone. Also consider that they lie about global warming to protect their corporate buddies. How much more likely are they to lie about wire-tapping and data mining to protect themselves? Now couple this with the recent EO stating that anyone who speaks or acts against the interests of Iraq recovery and democratic government can have all of their assets seized immediately and without recourse. Been to a protest, lately? And if you pay attention to the airport security, doesn't it seem that only the prominent democrats are targeted? One would think that Al Gore and Randi Rhodes and Cindy Sheehan et al., would be identifiable enough to finally get off the list. Not so.
Plus the fact that Bush has admitted that he broke the law by ignoring FISA and he'll continue to do it. By approving this law, congress has made that plank in the impeachment platform unusable. Why prosecute someone for a law that has been changed to agree with the lawbreaker? Of course, a young black man is in jail at this moment for the very same reason, but no matter.....different laws for different people.
Finally, shouldn't our energies be spent in defeating those democrats who voted FOR the measure? Like Feinstein? All those blue dogs (aka dixiecrats)? However, betrayal by a friend (democrat) is always more sharp than that of the enemy (republicans).
fallinglady
Yeah, Randi can get a bit hysterical from time to time. But she does it for a point. That doesn't mean all her listeners get it. Today (altho I could only hear part of her program) she said that "someone" was circulating rumors around DC that there was going to be a terrorist attack on DC any day and that they had to get outta town. The capitol police were suddenly everywhere as if to reinforce the rumor. So (I think) we had a little staging of a terror attack potential to blackmail the congress. It worked. Just like the anthrax "attacks," which (even I noticed at the time) managed to hit only democrats. (Well, except for some poor old lady who got caught in the crossfire.) And, wonder of wonders, no one has been caught and apparently no one is even looking, because of course, "they" know who did it. It came from government stocks of anthrax. Soon as that tidbit came out, suddenly no one was looking for the 'anthraxer' any more.
Now, I think it possible that there are many unanswered questions about the 'use and administration' of the FISA act and as amended. Why wouldn't Ashcroft nor Comey okay what Bushco wanted to do? What was so aberrant that these two solid republicans refused to go along? Why are appeals court judges denying Bushco the actions they want to carry out? How does the wording of the act passed Saturday enable spying that they couldn't do before? And I don't mean the internet or the companies involved. Are they data mining? Are they spying on political opponents? Are they tracking all the peace protesters? Well, we just don't know, because the liar Gonzo is in charge for the liar Bush and his liar buddy Darth.
You bring up the possibility of a call to your French sex caller. But what if that is used to blackmail someone. Also consider that they lie about global warming to protect their corporate buddies. How much more likely are they to lie about wire-tapping and data mining to protect themselves? Now couple this with the recent EO stating that anyone who speaks or acts against the interests of Iraq recovery and democratic government can have all of their assets seized immediately and without recourse. Been to a protest, lately? And if you pay attention to the airport security, doesn't it seem that only the prominent democrats are targeted? One would think that Al Gore and Randi Rhodes and Cindy Sheehan et al., would be identifiable enough to finally get off the list. Not so.
Plus the fact that Bush has admitted that he broke the law by ignoring FISA and he'll continue to do it. By approving this law, congress has made that plank in the impeachment platform unusable. Why prosecute someone for a law that has been changed to agree with the lawbreaker? Of course, a young black man is in jail at this moment for the very same reason, but no matter.....different laws for different people.
Finally, shouldn't our energies be spent in defeating those democrats who voted FOR the measure? Like Feinstein? All those blue dogs (aka dixiecrats)? However, betrayal by a friend (democrat) is always more sharp than that of the enemy (republicans).
fallinglady
Joe,
How is your toothache? Hope you are feeling better.
Now back to business. I read every response to your last post and this post. This is what I gathered (not scientific, but my impression):
-75% seem to agree with you or back your arguments.
-15% profess to having been influenced by your arguments even if they don't agree with you 100%.
-10% are either 9/11 or JFK conspiracy buffs and/or call you a paid agent of GOD knows what.
-Most seem sane and articulate DEMOCRATS to me.
-80% seem to think that your message is unique (whether they agree with you or not).
-There is noticeably less bad language here than I see on most other blogs.
So what exactly are you "bellyaching " about?
You can not be that "thin skinned"!
There has to be more to it than just that.
Most of your readers appreciate you. The ones that don't, can always leave.
So, the question remains. What is driving you to render everyone and everything beyond hope?
How is your toothache? Hope you are feeling better.
Now back to business. I read every response to your last post and this post. This is what I gathered (not scientific, but my impression):
-75% seem to agree with you or back your arguments.
-15% profess to having been influenced by your arguments even if they don't agree with you 100%.
-10% are either 9/11 or JFK conspiracy buffs and/or call you a paid agent of GOD knows what.
-Most seem sane and articulate DEMOCRATS to me.
-80% seem to think that your message is unique (whether they agree with you or not).
-There is noticeably less bad language here than I see on most other blogs.
So what exactly are you "bellyaching " about?
You can not be that "thin skinned"!
There has to be more to it than just that.
Most of your readers appreciate you. The ones that don't, can always leave.
So, the question remains. What is driving you to render everyone and everything beyond hope?
fallinglady, I am grateful for your response.
First, I heard those same rumors about the Capitol Hill police. Fascinating, but I am looking for some confirmation.
Second, the anti-Democratic "progressive" movement has spread far beyond DU. You see it even in the TPM comments. The Freepers must be smiling.
When I used the example of a sexy conversation with a French lady, my point was that the DNI has no business listening in to any such calls. In actual practice, he would not want to. But the law will give him the ability to do so.
That is my problem with the new law. It allows for fishing expeditions.
As for working for the defeat of those Blue Dog Dems -- it depends on the situation.
There were a handful who have comfortable seats in anti-Bush districts. There should be primary challenges in those areas, I think.
But in other areas, well, look, in many of those southern districts the Dem is vulnerable. So it is not a choice between the Blue Dog and a Howard Dean clone. It's a choice between the Blue Dog and a Tom Delay clone.
We must be realistic. The Blue Dog will vote with us at least half the time. The Republican will not.
Feinstein is a strange case. She is popular here, but I've never liked her. I guess she is someone tolerated or grudgingly liked by the folks in the both the blue parts of the state as well as in the red areas. (Remember, California used to be a red state.) So she is more or less there for life. Fortunately, she keeps facing electoral challenges from far-right Republicans who never have much appeal for the folks in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
I'm not fond of Feinstein, but she's better than, say, a Pete Wilson.
you write:
"Plus the fact that Bush has admitted that he broke the law by ignoring FISA and he'll continue to do it. By approving this law, congress has made that plank in the impeachment platform unusable. Why prosecute someone for a law that has been changed to agree with the lawbreaker?"
I don't follow you here. Bush has rejected FISA in toto, at least in theory. The rewritten parts of the law do not impact in any way his previous snubbing of the law. And the Protect America Act does not cover what Bush did before.
"Why wouldn't Ashcroft nor Comey okay what Bushco wanted to do? What was so aberrant that these two solid republicans refused to go along?"
That was different. I think. We still don't know precisely WHAT that damned hospital thing was all about!
"How does the wording of the act passed Saturday enable spying that they couldn't do before? And I don't mean the internet or the companies involved. Are they data mining? Are they spying on political opponents? Are they tracking all the peace protesters? Well, we just don't know, because the liar Gonzo is in charge for the liar Bush and his liar buddy Darth."
The last point is true, but you can't have one law for a crook and another law for a GOOD AG. There must be one law.
I don't know if they are data mining. I mean, that's what I was trying to get at in my last paragraph. The NSA's capabilities may be so advanced that this whole argument over FISA is just a distraction.
As for whether peace protestors are being tracked -- I strongly suspect that they are, but the amended FISA law would have little to do with tracking American peace protestors. Again: Da secret woid is "foreign." That's why there is an F in FISA.
I suspect that the U.S. intelligence community receives information on American dissenters from Australia, the UK and Canada. That's been going on for decades. You can argue that this sort of intel trading with friendly services is outrageous, and I might well agree with you, but the current FISA law has nothing to do with it.
You slightly misunderstand what I wrote about the Bush EO, and HamdenRice at DU took me to task, somewhat, for what I wrote. See here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/search?q=executive+order+iraq
Incidentally, I still see that EO as a potentially more worrisome problem than is this new FISA law. But as I noted earlier, Congress cannot counter an EO unless one party has sufficient numbers to override a veto. Just ain't gonna happen. I really think the whole EO system needs a re-thinking.
First, I heard those same rumors about the Capitol Hill police. Fascinating, but I am looking for some confirmation.
Second, the anti-Democratic "progressive" movement has spread far beyond DU. You see it even in the TPM comments. The Freepers must be smiling.
When I used the example of a sexy conversation with a French lady, my point was that the DNI has no business listening in to any such calls. In actual practice, he would not want to. But the law will give him the ability to do so.
That is my problem with the new law. It allows for fishing expeditions.
As for working for the defeat of those Blue Dog Dems -- it depends on the situation.
There were a handful who have comfortable seats in anti-Bush districts. There should be primary challenges in those areas, I think.
But in other areas, well, look, in many of those southern districts the Dem is vulnerable. So it is not a choice between the Blue Dog and a Howard Dean clone. It's a choice between the Blue Dog and a Tom Delay clone.
We must be realistic. The Blue Dog will vote with us at least half the time. The Republican will not.
Feinstein is a strange case. She is popular here, but I've never liked her. I guess she is someone tolerated or grudgingly liked by the folks in the both the blue parts of the state as well as in the red areas. (Remember, California used to be a red state.) So she is more or less there for life. Fortunately, she keeps facing electoral challenges from far-right Republicans who never have much appeal for the folks in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
I'm not fond of Feinstein, but she's better than, say, a Pete Wilson.
you write:
"Plus the fact that Bush has admitted that he broke the law by ignoring FISA and he'll continue to do it. By approving this law, congress has made that plank in the impeachment platform unusable. Why prosecute someone for a law that has been changed to agree with the lawbreaker?"
I don't follow you here. Bush has rejected FISA in toto, at least in theory. The rewritten parts of the law do not impact in any way his previous snubbing of the law. And the Protect America Act does not cover what Bush did before.
"Why wouldn't Ashcroft nor Comey okay what Bushco wanted to do? What was so aberrant that these two solid republicans refused to go along?"
That was different. I think. We still don't know precisely WHAT that damned hospital thing was all about!
"How does the wording of the act passed Saturday enable spying that they couldn't do before? And I don't mean the internet or the companies involved. Are they data mining? Are they spying on political opponents? Are they tracking all the peace protesters? Well, we just don't know, because the liar Gonzo is in charge for the liar Bush and his liar buddy Darth."
The last point is true, but you can't have one law for a crook and another law for a GOOD AG. There must be one law.
I don't know if they are data mining. I mean, that's what I was trying to get at in my last paragraph. The NSA's capabilities may be so advanced that this whole argument over FISA is just a distraction.
As for whether peace protestors are being tracked -- I strongly suspect that they are, but the amended FISA law would have little to do with tracking American peace protestors. Again: Da secret woid is "foreign." That's why there is an F in FISA.
I suspect that the U.S. intelligence community receives information on American dissenters from Australia, the UK and Canada. That's been going on for decades. You can argue that this sort of intel trading with friendly services is outrageous, and I might well agree with you, but the current FISA law has nothing to do with it.
You slightly misunderstand what I wrote about the Bush EO, and HamdenRice at DU took me to task, somewhat, for what I wrote. See here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/search?q=executive+order+iraq
Incidentally, I still see that EO as a potentially more worrisome problem than is this new FISA law. But as I noted earlier, Congress cannot counter an EO unless one party has sufficient numbers to override a veto. Just ain't gonna happen. I really think the whole EO system needs a re-thinking.
BTW if you are going to "Ex-Communicate" UNI.....you might as well give me the axe too!
It's a matter of principal, you know. When it comes to that, I am a purist, I admit!
It's a matter of principal, you know. When it comes to that, I am a purist, I admit!
beeta, you never made me grit my teeth so hard they hurt.
By the way, it's better today. But I still can't put much pressure on my jaw.
Yesterday's message got a lot of responses. Maybe I should write more often while in physical pain.
There's a connection between dentistry and theology, isn't there? I mean, the concept of a loving God is hard to reconcile with the cosmic joker who put completely unneeded nerve endings in our teeth. Whenever people ask why I tend toward Gnosticism, I tell them to think back to the last time they had a toothache. On such occasions, it's easy to believe that the god of the material world is a malicious demiurge who takes sadistic pleasure in our travails.
On a symbolic level, at least, that conception makes sense to me.
By the way, it's better today. But I still can't put much pressure on my jaw.
Yesterday's message got a lot of responses. Maybe I should write more often while in physical pain.
There's a connection between dentistry and theology, isn't there? I mean, the concept of a loving God is hard to reconcile with the cosmic joker who put completely unneeded nerve endings in our teeth. Whenever people ask why I tend toward Gnosticism, I tell them to think back to the last time they had a toothache. On such occasions, it's easy to believe that the god of the material world is a malicious demiurge who takes sadistic pleasure in our travails.
On a symbolic level, at least, that conception makes sense to me.
I am curious which country is monitoring the regular Americans now. If Fisa law lets us listen to anyone in Europe or Asia, do those governments do like us and routinely sit around listening to our internal calls waiting for someone to do something wrong or plan something?
It is something to think about and consider because we all know One World Government is the aim..... so we agree and do we get penalized by let's pick a country out and say Russia??
It is something to think about and consider because we all know One World Government is the aim..... so we agree and do we get penalized by let's pick a country out and say Russia??
Joseph asks..
There's a connection between dentistry and theology, isn't there? I mean, the concept of a loving God is hard to reconcile with the cosmic joker who put completely unneeded nerve endings in our teeth. Whenever people ask why I tend toward Gnosticism, I tell them to think back to the last time they had a toothache. On such occasions, it's easy to believe that the god of the material world is a malicious demiurge who takes sadistic pleasure in our travails.
Joseph Biblical Theology 101 informs us that Lucifer is the God of this world and has been since mankind slipped and fell and plumetted down here from paradise. God sent His ace in the hole Jesus to fix everything so not to worry..and if you have doubys about His prowess just ask Him to prove it to you.He will..that's all I can say about that for now.
There's a connection between dentistry and theology, isn't there? I mean, the concept of a loving God is hard to reconcile with the cosmic joker who put completely unneeded nerve endings in our teeth. Whenever people ask why I tend toward Gnosticism, I tell them to think back to the last time they had a toothache. On such occasions, it's easy to believe that the god of the material world is a malicious demiurge who takes sadistic pleasure in our travails.
Joseph Biblical Theology 101 informs us that Lucifer is the God of this world and has been since mankind slipped and fell and plumetted down here from paradise. God sent His ace in the hole Jesus to fix everything so not to worry..and if you have doubys about His prowess just ask Him to prove it to you.He will..that's all I can say about that for now.
Are you guys trying to spin or what?
This bill could have easily been mired in procedural gamesmanship, but for some reason there was a rush to pass it.
You mean to say the Dem-o leadership didnt KNOW it would pass???? What a joke!
Sorry, but they knew, and let it happen, worried that if something happened they would be blamed. Cant risk that 2008 election, can they?
The Dem leadership is a joke and has no backbone.
Uproar? Hah! A whimper from a nation afraid of their government.
This bill could have easily been mired in procedural gamesmanship, but for some reason there was a rush to pass it.
You mean to say the Dem-o leadership didnt KNOW it would pass???? What a joke!
Sorry, but they knew, and let it happen, worried that if something happened they would be blamed. Cant risk that 2008 election, can they?
The Dem leadership is a joke and has no backbone.
Uproar? Hah! A whimper from a nation afraid of their government.
"...Sorry, but they knew, and let it happen,...."
Reluctant complicit-ness does not equate with opposition.
Reluctant complicit-ness does not equate with opposition.
Ah, there we go again. The Standard Issue Both Parties Are the Same Lecture. Haven't I already put out the unwelcome mat for that one? And as always, if you are going to try to sell me on a rejected cliche, could you not try to put it in a new way -- iambic pentameter, acrostics, anything?
Yes, there was a rush to pass, for reasons I gave. Look, if you are not going to read what I write, why do you come here?
And you people still are under the impression that this amendment allows Gonzales to spy without restriction domestically.
As I said, if you aren't going to read what I say -- or if you are not going to read the damn law itself, even when I link to it -- why do you come here?
Why should I tolerate dimwits who won't do their homework?
And now for something completely different...
"Joseph Biblical Theology 101 informs us that Lucifer is the God of this world and has been since mankind slipped and fell and plumetted down here from paradise..."
Biblical theology 101 was written by Jews who believe no such thing.
Believe it or not, your standard Christian gloss is one I HAVE heard before. (Again, when peddling cliches, consider original delivery methods. Limericks, perhaps.)
So. A lion tears into an antelope on the African veldt. Imagine the searing agony felt by that animal, an entirely innocent creature.
Then imagine how many times each hour similar agonies are enacted across the globe. Imagine the pain felt by the cow shot to produce your hamburger. Or think back to your last toothache. Or to the victims of White Phosphorus at Fallujah. Babies born into famine.
Why this world of suffering?
According to your beloved mythos, these horrors all stem from the (purely mythical) sin of Adam. The myth is a way of saying that suffering is all YOUR fault. You once broke Mom's favorite vase and said "damn," and ever since you've said even worse words and done even worse things. And that's the reason why that innocent rabbit feels the torment of the owl's claws ripping open its belly. It's all YOUR fault.
Bullshit.
This whole mythos is a ploy designed by sharpies to exploit your inherent sense of masochistic self-loathing.
In reality, neither you nor I nor any other human being (including Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin) ever did anything bad enough to warrant being trapped on Punishment Planet. The worst of your sins are petty and insignificant things compared to what is felt by that antelope as fang and claw shred its flesh.
We are born innocent -- into a torture chamber. Our sins are not inherent, not the cause of a good world's fall, but are a reaction to being trapped on an inherently rotten plane of existence. Torture a child or an animal, and it will inevitably react in a bad way. People steal, lie, grow angry because that is the only way to prosper in a world of toil and hardship. Take away the toil and hardship, and even the worst of us would behave angelically.
We are inherently good but corrupted from without, like a piece of pure fruit dipped into a vat of poison. That vat of poison -- a.k.a. the material universe -- exists only because of the malice of the Demiurge.
The Demiurge: Picture Billy Mumy's character in that "Twilight Zone" episode -- that petulant, sadistic, insanely self-regarding, pre-moral child with cosmic powers, who demands to be loved by the creatures he tortures. Control your thoughts, because he can read them! Keep telling yourself that you love the Monster, lest he send you into the cornfield.
He wants you to believe that he is The Only Power, that there are no others. Naturally. How could an ominpotent, insanely self-regarding, pre-moral child think otherwise? With a kid, it's always me me me me. Thou shalt have no other Me before Me. Me me me me ME!
To the Jews, Little Billy's name was Yahweh. The Jews, Christians and Muslims actually WORSHIP the evil bastard! They feel that they have to. Otherwise, little Billy Mumy is going to send them into the cornfield.
(I find myself slipping into my Lord Buckley impersonation...)
Let me lay it on ya, babies. Faith ain't gonna save your asses. Certainly not faith in Little Billy. The only thing that is going to save you is KNOWLEDGE. Hip thyself to the score, reject Billy and his puerile hoodwinkery, and start looking for whatever other Bigger and Better Cats might be blowing some truly groovy jazz.
Maybe maybe maybe, there is someone or something who operates in a realm far above and beyond the abattoir run by Billy. And even if you never discover those other powers, there is no honor in pretending to love your tormentor out of fear that he'll send you into the cornfield.
I have just stated the Gnostic position.
And on a purely symbolic level, at least, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than does YOUR crappy mythos about Yahweh giving the planet to Lucifer because Adam et an apple.
And believe it or not, I HAVE heard your crap before. Many times.
Yes, there was a rush to pass, for reasons I gave. Look, if you are not going to read what I write, why do you come here?
And you people still are under the impression that this amendment allows Gonzales to spy without restriction domestically.
As I said, if you aren't going to read what I say -- or if you are not going to read the damn law itself, even when I link to it -- why do you come here?
Why should I tolerate dimwits who won't do their homework?
And now for something completely different...
"Joseph Biblical Theology 101 informs us that Lucifer is the God of this world and has been since mankind slipped and fell and plumetted down here from paradise..."
Biblical theology 101 was written by Jews who believe no such thing.
Believe it or not, your standard Christian gloss is one I HAVE heard before. (Again, when peddling cliches, consider original delivery methods. Limericks, perhaps.)
So. A lion tears into an antelope on the African veldt. Imagine the searing agony felt by that animal, an entirely innocent creature.
Then imagine how many times each hour similar agonies are enacted across the globe. Imagine the pain felt by the cow shot to produce your hamburger. Or think back to your last toothache. Or to the victims of White Phosphorus at Fallujah. Babies born into famine.
Why this world of suffering?
According to your beloved mythos, these horrors all stem from the (purely mythical) sin of Adam. The myth is a way of saying that suffering is all YOUR fault. You once broke Mom's favorite vase and said "damn," and ever since you've said even worse words and done even worse things. And that's the reason why that innocent rabbit feels the torment of the owl's claws ripping open its belly. It's all YOUR fault.
Bullshit.
This whole mythos is a ploy designed by sharpies to exploit your inherent sense of masochistic self-loathing.
In reality, neither you nor I nor any other human being (including Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin) ever did anything bad enough to warrant being trapped on Punishment Planet. The worst of your sins are petty and insignificant things compared to what is felt by that antelope as fang and claw shred its flesh.
We are born innocent -- into a torture chamber. Our sins are not inherent, not the cause of a good world's fall, but are a reaction to being trapped on an inherently rotten plane of existence. Torture a child or an animal, and it will inevitably react in a bad way. People steal, lie, grow angry because that is the only way to prosper in a world of toil and hardship. Take away the toil and hardship, and even the worst of us would behave angelically.
We are inherently good but corrupted from without, like a piece of pure fruit dipped into a vat of poison. That vat of poison -- a.k.a. the material universe -- exists only because of the malice of the Demiurge.
The Demiurge: Picture Billy Mumy's character in that "Twilight Zone" episode -- that petulant, sadistic, insanely self-regarding, pre-moral child with cosmic powers, who demands to be loved by the creatures he tortures. Control your thoughts, because he can read them! Keep telling yourself that you love the Monster, lest he send you into the cornfield.
He wants you to believe that he is The Only Power, that there are no others. Naturally. How could an ominpotent, insanely self-regarding, pre-moral child think otherwise? With a kid, it's always me me me me. Thou shalt have no other Me before Me. Me me me me ME!
To the Jews, Little Billy's name was Yahweh. The Jews, Christians and Muslims actually WORSHIP the evil bastard! They feel that they have to. Otherwise, little Billy Mumy is going to send them into the cornfield.
(I find myself slipping into my Lord Buckley impersonation...)
Let me lay it on ya, babies. Faith ain't gonna save your asses. Certainly not faith in Little Billy. The only thing that is going to save you is KNOWLEDGE. Hip thyself to the score, reject Billy and his puerile hoodwinkery, and start looking for whatever other Bigger and Better Cats might be blowing some truly groovy jazz.
Maybe maybe maybe, there is someone or something who operates in a realm far above and beyond the abattoir run by Billy. And even if you never discover those other powers, there is no honor in pretending to love your tormentor out of fear that he'll send you into the cornfield.
I have just stated the Gnostic position.
And on a purely symbolic level, at least, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than does YOUR crappy mythos about Yahweh giving the planet to Lucifer because Adam et an apple.
And believe it or not, I HAVE heard your crap before. Many times.
acrostics eh?
Alex Jones may be a hothead and a little “out there” and maybe there is and maybe there isn’t a Giant Owl for the burning of those Bohemian cares… but who cares? Alex Jones looks cool in that movie “Waking Life”
Bush knew all about it. Doesn’t mean he packed the building with explosives. But he knew all right. Still, does the Pet Goat really have to mean Baphomet??
Clinton something something parking meters Mena pupusas Viva FSLN! , and coo coo for coco puffs! and trained barry seals?? I am guilty. But honestly;
Did I not read that in Dark Alliances back in ’98, shit joe my memories not as good as it was, but after getting reamed out by you on it, I checked and checked and found nothing. I am guilty.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck couldn’t possibly be so military savy when she was fighting Rosy. And yes, Rosy was pretty much talking loose change and pentalawn BS, but still how did ditzy Elisabeth Hasslebeck get all that info to fight Rosie with? And jargon??
Fascism still seems to be overlooked as an issue here in America.. I never got the vibe you are a fan of Michael Parenti, but his historical analyses of Hitler and Mousolini’s economic policies, and [ghasp!] they’re just like ours!
GHWB aka 41 was the biggest drug dealer. Ever. So even if she did help a few businesses out (and that’s a bigger if than if my grandma has balls…) it’s still absolutely nothing compared to what 41 sold or what 43 snorted… and politics gets dirty (even when both sides aren’t the same)
H5N1 …still haven’t seen any, but Rumfeld, that ‘Zorrero’ who should be tried and hung (imho) has already made over $600M off that tamilflu shit. But from what I hear, Kissinger was testing it out in Tuskegee
I t does blow me away that you dismiss scalar weaponry as poppycock. Even your boy Clinton’s Wm Cohen (who in retrospect was only 600 million times better than Donald Shitsfeld) was warning against them… did they just pack up & leave? Did they cause the Tsunami?
Joe, most of us here and lurking love you, your insight and the fact that you can even get through to us, some of the PPs that at least have promise (PPPs?)
Kindly stick it out. We need you. Even if we disgust you.
Larry Silverstein still creeps me out no matter what. And that plane flying into WTC in the lone gunman pilot was just too eerie.
Mmmmm Peach! Nothing like the summertime in Georgia! (oh wait, that might be a blast!)
Nuke Iran still seems to be on the AIPAC wish list. Can we please make them illegal?
Owl ripping into poor rabbit. And all my fault? Thank you Jesus!
Please stick around Joe, at least until Big Wedding II?
Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealer. I think I heard LaRouche say that once.. or was it Ross Perot?
Republicans are almost the same as democrats, except for the evil, hateful, fear inducing, vote stealing, crack distributing part, Other than that (and no bid contracts), they’re the same. In a related story, my apple and my PC are the same. So if the word same.
Same as above.
There once was a man from LA. Who got tired of his commenters day after day. But the trannies did shout, and freaks like me wore him out, and he wanted to just walk away.
Understand though, that if you did, there would be one less place for the people who dearly need education
V for vendetta was a let down. Was it supposed to be about 9/11? How are we expected to have a revolution if our movies suck?
What if we bought ads, Joe? Would you then have to stay? And keep blogging?
Xenophobia is still as prevalent as misogyny . But I would be hard pressed to figure out which has more victims globally…
You think there’s any way we’re going to get out of these messes? Because it may not be the root cause of global warming, or of anything, really, but you know , there’s one place I think we can go to get all of this done, unfortunately it was really just meant as a figurative not literal place:
Zion! Good God, Yawl! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! …..What another fine mess this is….
Alex Jones may be a hothead and a little “out there” and maybe there is and maybe there isn’t a Giant Owl for the burning of those Bohemian cares… but who cares? Alex Jones looks cool in that movie “Waking Life”
Bush knew all about it. Doesn’t mean he packed the building with explosives. But he knew all right. Still, does the Pet Goat really have to mean Baphomet??
Clinton something something parking meters Mena pupusas Viva FSLN! , and coo coo for coco puffs! and trained barry seals?? I am guilty. But honestly;
Did I not read that in Dark Alliances back in ’98, shit joe my memories not as good as it was, but after getting reamed out by you on it, I checked and checked and found nothing. I am guilty.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck couldn’t possibly be so military savy when she was fighting Rosy. And yes, Rosy was pretty much talking loose change and pentalawn BS, but still how did ditzy Elisabeth Hasslebeck get all that info to fight Rosie with? And jargon??
Fascism still seems to be overlooked as an issue here in America.. I never got the vibe you are a fan of Michael Parenti, but his historical analyses of Hitler and Mousolini’s economic policies, and [ghasp!] they’re just like ours!
GHWB aka 41 was the biggest drug dealer. Ever. So even if she did help a few businesses out (and that’s a bigger if than if my grandma has balls…) it’s still absolutely nothing compared to what 41 sold or what 43 snorted… and politics gets dirty (even when both sides aren’t the same)
H5N1 …still haven’t seen any, but Rumfeld, that ‘Zorrero’ who should be tried and hung (imho) has already made over $600M off that tamilflu shit. But from what I hear, Kissinger was testing it out in Tuskegee
I t does blow me away that you dismiss scalar weaponry as poppycock. Even your boy Clinton’s Wm Cohen (who in retrospect was only 600 million times better than Donald Shitsfeld) was warning against them… did they just pack up & leave? Did they cause the Tsunami?
Joe, most of us here and lurking love you, your insight and the fact that you can even get through to us, some of the PPs that at least have promise (PPPs?)
Kindly stick it out. We need you. Even if we disgust you.
Larry Silverstein still creeps me out no matter what. And that plane flying into WTC in the lone gunman pilot was just too eerie.
Mmmmm Peach! Nothing like the summertime in Georgia! (oh wait, that might be a blast!)
Nuke Iran still seems to be on the AIPAC wish list. Can we please make them illegal?
Owl ripping into poor rabbit. And all my fault? Thank you Jesus!
Please stick around Joe, at least until Big Wedding II?
Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealer. I think I heard LaRouche say that once.. or was it Ross Perot?
Republicans are almost the same as democrats, except for the evil, hateful, fear inducing, vote stealing, crack distributing part, Other than that (and no bid contracts), they’re the same. In a related story, my apple and my PC are the same. So if the word same.
Same as above.
There once was a man from LA. Who got tired of his commenters day after day. But the trannies did shout, and freaks like me wore him out, and he wanted to just walk away.
Understand though, that if you did, there would be one less place for the people who dearly need education
V for vendetta was a let down. Was it supposed to be about 9/11? How are we expected to have a revolution if our movies suck?
What if we bought ads, Joe? Would you then have to stay? And keep blogging?
Xenophobia is still as prevalent as misogyny . But I would be hard pressed to figure out which has more victims globally…
You think there’s any way we’re going to get out of these messes? Because it may not be the root cause of global warming, or of anything, really, but you know , there’s one place I think we can go to get all of this done, unfortunately it was really just meant as a figurative not literal place:
Zion! Good God, Yawl! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! …..What another fine mess this is….
lee, you didn't need to say nice things about me to impress me with this one. You are GOD. This is just what I've been waiting for! A sign of creativity!
Trannies, Jesus peddlers, Nancy-haters -- you are all welcome here as long as you do what lee did. But don't do EXACTLY what lee did. That would not be creative.
Trannies, Jesus peddlers, Nancy-haters -- you are all welcome here as long as you do what lee did. But don't do EXACTLY what lee did. That would not be creative.
"The last point is true, but you can't have one law for a crook and another law for a GOOD AG. There must be one law.
I don't know if they are data mining. I mean, that's what I was trying to get at in my last paragraph. The NSA's capabilities may be so advanced that this whole argument over FISA is just a distraction.
As for whether peace protestors are being tracked -- I strongly suspect that they are, but the amended FISA law would have little to do with tracking American peace protestors. Again: Da secret woid is "foreign." That's why there is an F in FISA. "
I think this is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I just don't trust these guys to pay any attention to the letter or the spirit of the law. Just because it says "foreign" doesn't ensure that they will pay any attention to it. Just think about which foreigners would Ashcroft and Comey be shocked to know that Bush was spying on? The French president or the British PM? Well, maybe, but my guess is they spy on all foreign leaders all the time, anyway.
But I do agree with you that the entire EO apparatus needs rehaul and oversight.
There's another point which perhaps you could comment on, maybe at a later date. I used to think that people in congress knew more than we do. Now I'm not so sure. This question arose in connection with the 'inherent contempt' situation which seemed to catch them all off-guard. Now I'm wondering if they are all so ensconced in the beltway bubble that they are just as clueless as our fearless leader. Whatcha think?
fallinglady
I don't know if they are data mining. I mean, that's what I was trying to get at in my last paragraph. The NSA's capabilities may be so advanced that this whole argument over FISA is just a distraction.
As for whether peace protestors are being tracked -- I strongly suspect that they are, but the amended FISA law would have little to do with tracking American peace protestors. Again: Da secret woid is "foreign." That's why there is an F in FISA. "
I think this is where you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I just don't trust these guys to pay any attention to the letter or the spirit of the law. Just because it says "foreign" doesn't ensure that they will pay any attention to it. Just think about which foreigners would Ashcroft and Comey be shocked to know that Bush was spying on? The French president or the British PM? Well, maybe, but my guess is they spy on all foreign leaders all the time, anyway.
But I do agree with you that the entire EO apparatus needs rehaul and oversight.
There's another point which perhaps you could comment on, maybe at a later date. I used to think that people in congress knew more than we do. Now I'm not so sure. This question arose in connection with the 'inherent contempt' situation which seemed to catch them all off-guard. Now I'm wondering if they are all so ensconced in the beltway bubble that they are just as clueless as our fearless leader. Whatcha think?
fallinglady
"I just don't trust these guys to pay any attention to the letter or the spirit of the law."
But that's a different argument. Whether you trust these guys (and no sane person would) is a completely separate conversation from how the law should be worded. Laws apply to all, and they outlast administrations.
"Well, maybe, but my guess is they spy on all foreign leaders all the time, anyway."
I am sure you are right. That kind of spying was, in fact, perfectly legal under the original FISA law. And now you know why a lot of people didn't like FISA back in 1978.
"I used to think that people in congress knew more than we do. Now I'm not so sure. This question arose in connection with the 'inherent contempt' situation which seemed to catch them all off-guard. Now I'm wondering if they are all so ensconced in the beltway bubble that they are just as clueless as our fearless leader. Whatcha think?"
I think some are really bright and some are really dumb and many are somewhere in-between. I still wince when I think of Reyes saying that Al Qaeda was Sunni.
I can't pretend to have known about inherent contempt until it entered the meme-stream recently. And the first post I wrote on the subject got an important bit of history wrong.
I think of my own foolishness every time I call someone else a fool.
But that's a different argument. Whether you trust these guys (and no sane person would) is a completely separate conversation from how the law should be worded. Laws apply to all, and they outlast administrations.
"Well, maybe, but my guess is they spy on all foreign leaders all the time, anyway."
I am sure you are right. That kind of spying was, in fact, perfectly legal under the original FISA law. And now you know why a lot of people didn't like FISA back in 1978.
"I used to think that people in congress knew more than we do. Now I'm not so sure. This question arose in connection with the 'inherent contempt' situation which seemed to catch them all off-guard. Now I'm wondering if they are all so ensconced in the beltway bubble that they are just as clueless as our fearless leader. Whatcha think?"
I think some are really bright and some are really dumb and many are somewhere in-between. I still wince when I think of Reyes saying that Al Qaeda was Sunni.
I can't pretend to have known about inherent contempt until it entered the meme-stream recently. And the first post I wrote on the subject got an important bit of history wrong.
I think of my own foolishness every time I call someone else a fool.
All I have to say about Al Gore's "Assault on Reason" is right here:
http://cyanidehole.blogspot.com/2007/08/assailing-assault-on-reason-my-argument.html
http://cyanidehole.blogspot.com/2007/08/assailing-assault-on-reason-my-argument.html
Beeta,
I hope I do not come across as sounding nasty, but I was not in any way shape or form wanting to come across as "accomodating".
Maybe you're joking. If you are, I apologize and I'll have a good chuckle.
The thing is, though, is that I am seeing some very bad things on this side of the fence. I have always believed in the liberal/progressive cause because, as history has shown, America has benefited more from these causes (when they're implemented) than from the incredibly harmful policies of the modern (by this, I mean from the early 20th Century) Republican party.
I come to Joseph's defense because sadly, what he has said is true: after gaining so much in 2006, we are, yet again, to shoot ourselves in the head. From 1968, it's been the same thing: Dems finally gain an edge, but it's not enough for some, so, go after the Dems with lies and half-truths. Complain loudly, ignore the real truth and the real enemy, watch the Repubs win, then turn around and bitch.
The truth is that today, we are heading in that direction.
I am not saying that there should not be criticism of the Democratic Party. There needs to be, albiet CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. But what has been happening, and what Joseph has shown, is a knee-jerk, flying off the handle mood that distorts facts and puts half-truths and outright lies out there, and tosses logic out the godammed windo...while ignoring the real threat.
Like Joseph, I was for impeachment. Now, I am sickened by many of the 'peachment-bots, because they have, as usual, gotten facts wrong or gone after the wrong people. In short, they have nearly capsized a movement that is, by all means necessary.
Also, take a look at the recent FISA imbroglio. Despite the fact that the MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS voted against it, it's been reported as, "the Dems caved".
You see what I mean, Beeta? What I am upset at the most is that the facts are not put front and center anymore. It's lies and half-truths, with no one (except a few hard-headed realists) striving to put things right.
I can understand that attitude from Repubs and Neo-cons. I do not like it coming from Liberals and Progressives and Democrats. We are supposed to be better than that.
Oh, and I'm also tired of the "they're all the same" garbage.
Apologies for rambling on so much. But, you asked, and I answered. If I came across as a bit angry, it's not at you. Don't take it personally.
And yeah, I'm not afraid to use my real name. I've got nothing to hide here.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I hope I do not come across as sounding nasty, but I was not in any way shape or form wanting to come across as "accomodating".
Maybe you're joking. If you are, I apologize and I'll have a good chuckle.
The thing is, though, is that I am seeing some very bad things on this side of the fence. I have always believed in the liberal/progressive cause because, as history has shown, America has benefited more from these causes (when they're implemented) than from the incredibly harmful policies of the modern (by this, I mean from the early 20th Century) Republican party.
I come to Joseph's defense because sadly, what he has said is true: after gaining so much in 2006, we are, yet again, to shoot ourselves in the head. From 1968, it's been the same thing: Dems finally gain an edge, but it's not enough for some, so, go after the Dems with lies and half-truths. Complain loudly, ignore the real truth and the real enemy, watch the Repubs win, then turn around and bitch.
The truth is that today, we are heading in that direction.
I am not saying that there should not be criticism of the Democratic Party. There needs to be, albiet CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. But what has been happening, and what Joseph has shown, is a knee-jerk, flying off the handle mood that distorts facts and puts half-truths and outright lies out there, and tosses logic out the godammed windo...while ignoring the real threat.
Like Joseph, I was for impeachment. Now, I am sickened by many of the 'peachment-bots, because they have, as usual, gotten facts wrong or gone after the wrong people. In short, they have nearly capsized a movement that is, by all means necessary.
Also, take a look at the recent FISA imbroglio. Despite the fact that the MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS voted against it, it's been reported as, "the Dems caved".
You see what I mean, Beeta? What I am upset at the most is that the facts are not put front and center anymore. It's lies and half-truths, with no one (except a few hard-headed realists) striving to put things right.
I can understand that attitude from Repubs and Neo-cons. I do not like it coming from Liberals and Progressives and Democrats. We are supposed to be better than that.
Oh, and I'm also tired of the "they're all the same" garbage.
Apologies for rambling on so much. But, you asked, and I answered. If I came across as a bit angry, it's not at you. Don't take it personally.
And yeah, I'm not afraid to use my real name. I've got nothing to hide here.
