Friday, October 26, 2007

Paul Wellstone: July 21, 1944 - October 25, 2002

Yesterday was the 5th anniversary of Senator Paul Wellstone's tragic death. If we had more people like him, even if everyone were just a little bit more like him, our country and our world would be a better place.



His early death is truly tragic.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters


Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Qwest, warrantless data mining, 9/11 and imunity

Geez... Where do I start?

Qwest was asked to do some no-so nice stuff:
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

[snip]

In May 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program lacked legal standing.
They didn't do said no-so-nice stuff. Because the program "lacked legal standing" which I think is a fancy way of saying "illegal".

So, that is interesting (but not really new)... The Bush Administration was doing something illegal (I know, shocking).

But this was before 9/11! So that means that (a) not only did their illegal data mining not prevent the terrorist attacks but (b) their desire to illegally count the number of times you call you girlfriend was a decision independent of planes crashing into buildings. I don't think that is what they've been telling us for the last six years.

Now, a guy on the business end of an insider trading trial isn't exactly the most credible guy around. But given what we've learned over the last 6 years about the Bush Administration, is there anyone short of Rush Limbaugh and Dana Perino who is going to stand up and claim this is untrue? I didn't think so.

And because Qwest didn't play ball Cheney-style, they cut them off other unrelated government contracts. Some would call that 'not rewarding bad behavior'. Others would call it blackmail.

Finally, there is a new FISA bill winding its way through the corridors of Capitol Hill as we speak. One of the most hotly contested aspects of it is to include immunity for Telecom companies who broke the law when they gave the US Government access to private information without one of those messy little warrants. Some folks don't want to give immunity and others are making a big deal of it. Bush said he'd veto anything without immunity for telecoms. I doubt that is Bush is overly concerned with keeping Telecom company execs out of prison as much as he is concerned with the messy trials and all the other messy crimes our government has been committing since Cheney got his dirty fingers on the levers of power. I don't have a fully formed opinion on Telecom immunity. I can't honestly say what I would do if some high-level government types showed up at my office in black SUVs with tinted windows and talking into the radio in the palm of their hand. That can be pretty intimidating and when my government asks me to do something ("You mind stepping out of the car, sir?"), I usually do it. The real criminals here are not the Telecom executives who OK'd this program, it is the guys in black SUVs that asked them to do it. I'll bet my next student loan that Dick Cheney's hands are on this somewhere. That guy just hates privacy!

One of the main reasons I don't want immunity is we can learn what the heck this is all about during the inevitable trial.

What really gets me about all this is that this was going on pre-9/11, but they then used 9/11 to justify it. Grrr.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Wherein I give my opinion on something

I don't do a lot of analysis on this blog. That is mostly because 1) by the time I think of something, it has already been written 2) I don't have of time or readers, so it doesn't make that much sense. But now, I've got something to say!

Mark Ambinder writes a really great blog over at The Atlantic. He asks some questions about Michigan and it's bizarre primary. Questions I'm ready to answer!
Those Democrats who removed their names from the Michigan Primary ballot sure angered a lot of important people, but did they do irreparable harm to the party's interests in the state?

The jury's ... hung.

1. Michigan's economy being what it is, the state is sometimes shielded from national crosswinds. If Granholm's tax hike proves unpopular, Dems could have a tougher-than-expect time in '08 and the GOP base in Michigan (alone) could be energized. But -- the crosswinds kept Granholm in office in 2006, the UAW is still the state's most powerful political force, the state is still probably more blue than red, and only certain Republican candidates have a plausible shot here.

2. Are state Dem activists likely to punish the Democratic nominee if he is among the opter-outers? Unclear. Would their level of activity be diminished? Would the Democratic coordinated campaign here be riven by internal disputes?

3. Is Michigan completely discounted in the primaries? I asked the executive producer of an influential television program last night whether he'd cover the delegate-less Democratic primary like the half-delegate-less Republican primary. No, he said. The GOP primary was real; the Dem primary wasn't. The answer to question three can be found in the degree to which other media gatekeepers believe this particular executive producer.

4. Will Iowans punish Hillary Clinton (and Chris Dodd) for remaining on the ballot? Probably not -- they're mercurial, generally, but tend to care about more important things.

5. Will this redouble the efforts of Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin and others to crush Iowa and New Hampshire once and for all when the DNC begins to think about the 2012 cycle? Yes indeed.

6. Will Hillary Clinton get important national endorsements because of the sleight to Michigan? Maybe the UAW's.

7. Will the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada, assuming that it goes on the 12th of January), exert an influence on how the media covers Michigan? Yes.
The short answer is that none of this matters. Michigan will not turn red because of this. Who cares about the primary anyway? Not most people. Next November, if you ask people, on the exit poll, if the primary situation effected their vote, they'll answer no.

Even if people cared enough and could possibly remembers something so 'inside-baseball' as this from January to November, no one understands it. It is fun for political junkies to blather on about when the only other things going on in campaign coverage is visits to diners in New Hampshire and hay-rides in Iowa.

I suppose this could change depending on the media narrative surrounding it when the primary actually takes place, but I honestly believe whoever wins Iowa will be come the "presumptive candidate" and everything that happens after that is political theatre.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Norway makes a funny

This is a Norwegian Daily Show-like fake news show that has a little fun with NY City Councilman, and GOP minority leader, James Oddo. It could be said Councilman Oddo didn't get this joke. This is hilarious.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Krugster: Flawless

It's Paul Krugman's World we're just living in it
In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs. If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny.

People ask me why I'm a Democrat. See above.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Law & Order: I don't want your vote

This has to hurt. The picture depicts Fred Thompson, in four frames, talking to an Iowa voter. It is clearly an uncomfortable exchange. And in the caption we learn that after the discussion the voter said he would vote for Mitt Romney.

You're Fred Thompson, you don't connect with a lot of voters on a one-on-one basis, and you get one and after words he says he is voting for Multiple Choice Mitt?

Ouch