An’ we be on th’ offensive in Iraq, wi’ a clear plan fer victory. First, we be helpin’ Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments be eased, an’ th’ insurgency marginalized. Second, we be continuin’ reconstruction efforts, an’ helpin’ th’ Iraqi government t’ swashbuckle corruption an’ build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience th’ benefits o’ freedom. Third, we be strikin’ terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that be increasingly capable o’ defeatin’ th’ enemy. Iraqis be showin’ the’r courage ever’ tide, an’ we be proud t’ be the’r allies in th’ cause o’ freedom.
Our work in Iraq be difficult, on accoun’ o’ our enemy be brutal. But that brutality has nay stopped th’ dramatic progress o’ a new democracy. In less than three voyages, that nation has gone from dictatorship, t’ liberation, t’ sovereignty, t’ a constitution, t’ national elections. At th’ same time, our coalition be relentless in shuttin’ off terrorist infiltration, clearin’ ou’ insurgent strongholds, an’ turnin’ o’er territory t’ Iraqi security forces. I be confident in our plan fer victory ? I be confident in th’ will o’ th’ Iraqi swabbies ? I be confident in th’ skill an’ spirit o’ our military. Swabbie citizens, we be in this swashbuckle t’ win, an’ we be winnin’.
San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Tuesday, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans’ communications.
The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the president had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court. Over the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the NSA program has been intercepting and analyzing millions of Americans’ communications, with the help of the country’s largest phone and Internet companies.
Reporting has also indicated that those same companies—and AT&T specifically—have given the NSA direct access to their vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or emailed with in the past. And yet little has been accomplished by this illegal spying: recent reports have shown that the data from this wholesale surveillance has done little more than waste FBI resources on dead leads.
“The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary Americans’ phone calls and emails for ’suspicious’ patterns, and it’s the collaboration of US telecom companies like AT&T that makes it possible,” said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. “When the government defends spying on Americans by saying, ‘If you’re talking to terrorists we want to know about it,’ that’s not even close to the whole story.”
In the lawsuit, EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, has given the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte “Daytona” database of caller information—one of the largest databases in the world.
My nice quiet little corner of the internet has suddenly become a raucous party. Not sure how I feel about that, though you all seem like a pretty nice crowd. Only one real troll so far, and he/she was polite enough — but far too insistent. Here’s the deal: if this is a raucous party, it’s for me and my friends. If you’re going to barge in and demand to be the center of attention and generally behave like the loud drunk that no one invited, you’ll be eighty-sixed.
Also, a comments week rule arising from the Colbert thread: anyone who suggests that the host’s choice of a given topic is too frivilous when there are Serious Issues in the World To Be Solved will have their comment run through a pirate translator and reposted.
Sample comment: How can you waste time writing about your new book when there are children starving in the world?
Sample comment run through pirate translator: Yarrr! How can ye waste time writin’ about your new book when thar be sprogs starvin’ in t’ world?
Since my more optimistic friends in the blogosphere are taking the opportunity to thank the 25 Dems who supported the filibuster (at least, since late last week after getting harassed by their base), here’s the list of the Democrats who didn’t support the filibuster.
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
What’s the point of having a Democratic Senate when almost half of the caucus (like the 19 listed above) is too afraid of their constituents to do the right thing? Is there any issue these men and women are willing to ignore the polls and fight for? Based on what we’ve seen, we know they aren’t willing to fight to protect freedom of privacy, due process, or checks and balances. These men and women (most of whom voted against Alito, btw) care more about their job security than protecting your personal freedoms. This is the worst form of pandering and the Democratic leadership should keep this list handy if the Democrats accidentally regain the Senate any time soon. Don’t support the party? No committee chairmanship for you.
Speaking of pandering, as much as I love Digby, I’m gonna have to disagree with him on this one :
I keep hearing that it’s bad that these Senators “pandered” to the blogosphere and I don’t understand it. We want them to pander to the blogosphere. In their book Politicians Don’t Pander; Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro argue:
Politicians respond to public opinion, then, but in two quite different ways. In one, politicians assemble information on public opinion to design government policy. This is usually equated with “pandering,” and this is most evident during the relatively short period when presidential elections are imminent. The use of public opinion research here, however, raises a troubling question: why has the derogatory term “pander” been pinned on politicians who respond to public opinion? The answer is revealing: the term is deliberately deployed by politicians, pundits, and other elites to belittle government responsiveness to public opinion and reflects a long-standing fear, uneasiness, and hostility among elites toward popular consent and influence over the affairs of government
Bingo. It isn’t actually pandering. It’s responsiveness.
The difference between pandering and responsiveness is that legitimate responsiveness isn’t patronizing. If Kerry was legitimately moved by the extremity of Alito’s views, he wouldn’t have announced his plan to filibuster at the last minute while he was in Europe. He would have stayed home and tried to gain the support of his fellow Democrats. At the very least, he would have given Harry Reid a phone call. If the red state Dems who voted against cloture really didn’t think Alito was extreme enough to filibuster, they wouldn’t have voted “No” on his confirmation. These weren’t decisions based on conviction, they were attempts to kiss the asses of various segments of the electorate. It’s the sincerity, stupid.
Now I know this next part is going to sound hopelessly naive, but I don’t want a party that’s only able to act in reaction to events on the ground. I want a proactive Democratic party that doesn’t need to be harassed in order to see that Justice Alito is a wingnut. While other bloggers find it refreshing that netroots activists were able to convince 25 Senators to support a filibuster, I’m saddened that trying to block Alito’s confirmation didn’t come as second nature. I thought we had similar values, but if it still takes a massive effort on our part to get this far, then we’re probably just better off pretending to be evangelicals and calling the Republicans. If we’re going to have to get on our knees and beg our Representatives to do the right thing, we might as well beg the people who have the power.
For years now, the Democrats have been promising us that their flip-flopping and brown-nosing was no big deal because they wouldn’t buckle when it came to the big fights. Yet we’ve been tricked into excusing this sort of behavior time and again. You guys supported the Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution, the Medicare Drug Bill, the President’s tax cuts, the promotion of torture advocate Alberto Gonzales, and now the appointment of two conservative ideologues to the Supreme Court. Sure, a plurality of Dems are usually in the opposition, but when you’ve got Obama supporting “tort reform”, Feinstein supporting the prescription drug debacle, Kerry and Clinton supporting the Iraq war resolution, Feingold voting to confirm John Roberts and almost everybody supporting the Patriot Act, this isn’t something that can just be laid at the feet of the usual suspects like Joe Lieberman. Over and over again we see Democrats support the President’s agenda and we’re supposed to believe everything will magically get better once you guys get into power? If the Democratic-controlled the Senate from mid-2001 to the end of 2002 is any indication, the Dem weakness on the Alito confirmation, the President’s unconstitutional spying program, and the Republican bribery scandal is just business as usual.
Stephen Colbert doesn’t have the balls to invite me on his little “program”.
It’s true. Some producers at the so-called “Colbert Report” were initially enthused about having me as a guest (in conjunction with the release of my new book) — but somehow, somewhere up the chain of command, the idea was slapped down.
There’s only one explanation that I can see. And it involves Mr. Colbert’s balls.
Joe Lieberman’s hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register, has a daily “Soundoff” column, in which readers are invited to phone in their opinions on a question of the day for the next day’s edition. The questions range from banal everyday subjects to political topics; the respondents usually skew at least two-thirds conservative. In other words, these are exactly the voters Joe hopes to win over with his own special brand of democonservatism. Anyway, the responses to this morning’s question, “how do you rate Sen. Lieberman’s job performance?” are not particularly encouraging for our boy Joe. (The section’s not online, so I’m posting a scan. Click on the excerpt below to see all the responses.)
Update 1: Welcome, Kossackians! Take off your shoes, stay awhile.
Update 2: Potential Lieberman challenger Ned Lamont needs 1,000 Connecticut residents to sign up as volunteers, here.
Perusing a Freepi thread on Jill Carroll linked by Atrios, I am struck not only by their callous, unthinking brutality — you expect that, when you dip a toe into that particular sewer — but by their cowardice. Here, check this out:
That is what I don’t get about the left and their opposition to the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance. Without these sorts of measures, there is a real possibility that the world could soon turn Islamic. Then all of their “civil rights” would be gone for good. I’m not saying that is likely but it could happen if we are not vigilant.
This particular poster has a tenuous enough grasp on reality to understand that the scenario he envisions may not be “likely”, but that’s still some serious paranoia — to somehow get from point (a), the threat of terrorism and the possibility of further attacks on American soil, to point (b), an Islamic States of America, in which your so-called “civil liberties” are spat upon by swarthy men with head scarves.
It’s a wonder these people can function in the world, given how they must quiver with fright at every unexpected noise.
Want a good example of how out-of-touch the President is? Well, here’s a preview of his State of the Union address :
President Bush is expected to promote a series of health care initiatives in his State of the Union address tonight, including new incentives for workers to choose coverage that gives them more control over their medical spending.
Bush’s proposals will center on health savings accounts, which allow people to set aside tax-free dollars to cover medical expenses. These accounts, which were established under the Medicare Modernization Act passed in late 2003, are tied to high-deductible health insurance policies.
This concept is designed to make people more prudent health care consumers because they spend more of their own money. The accounts reflect Bush’s philosophy of an “ownership society” in which individuals take greater control over their personal health and wealth.
Only a rich kid like the King George would ever think up something like health savings accounts. In his world, it makes perfect sense for Americans to save up for something they can’t afford. Hell, he’s never had to worry about money, why should we? Well, here’s a good reason to worry :
Americans spent $42bn (£24bn) more than they earned last year, turning the annual US savings ratio negative for the first time since the Great Depression.
. . .
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year, meaning Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income but also had to increase their borrowings or plunder their savings. This is the first time theratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.
The savings ratio is seen as a key economic indicator as it shows how vulnerable households are to a sudden shock such as a surge in interest rates or unexpected redundancy.
Since our trust fund baby-in-chief is fond of recycling the same crappy proposals over and over again, I hope you’ll forgive me for doing the same by reposting part of what I wrote the last time he tried to sell this utopian garbage :
I wonder if Bush has ever had to lay all his bills out on the kitchen table and figure out which ones he can pay immediately and which ones can wait until the next paycheck? Or if he’s ever lived in an overcrowded apartment with hand-me-down furniture, eating the same thing six days a week because it’s cheaper? Or if he’s ever had to settle for a job slightly less shitty than the one he had in high school because there weren’t any jobs in the field he majored in? Of if he’s gone through the process of figuring out which generic brand products at the grocery store are as good as the name brands and which ones aren’t?
As most of you know, I’m not just describing poverty here. This is normal life for many Americans. Some live paycheck to paycheck, while others are able to pinch enough pennies to save a few bucks. Either way, most people don’t have thousands of dollars to spare.
Practically speaking, savings accounts for retirement and heath care a huge mistake, but for entirely separate reasons. With the latter, the rub is that health care is expensive. Let’s say you have an medical emergency with costs in the $20-30K range. How long would it take you to save that much? A few years? Even with the vague incentives, we’re still looking at a plan that’s the equivalent of asking every American to buy a new car that he/she may never drive.
That same principle holds true with Republican proposals for education and retirement savings. Do they honestly believe we’ve all got extra income sitting around that we can throw in the bank? It must be nice to grow up in the GOP world of disposable income and “personal responsibility”…
According to a commenter over at HuffPo, this is Rush Limbaugh’s response to the domestic surveillance scandal: “If you’re doing nothing wrong why would you care?”
That would be the same Rush Limbaugh who’s spent the last two years fighting the release of his medical records to the prosecutors who are investigating his procurement of illegally obtained prescription drugs.
Inspired by a commenter — how many times have the Bushies claimed executive privilege and refused to release info? So far I’ve got:
–9/11 preparedness
–Katrina preparedness
–Cheney’s (energy) task force
–extent of contact with Ken Lay
–extent of contact with Abramoff
–John Roberts correspondence
…oh, and of course, the specifics of the NSA spying itself.
