Archive for June, 2008
June 26th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
It appears the Senate will wait a few more weeks before capitulating completely to Mr 23%.
Objections by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will push back an overhaul of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after lawmakers
return in July, Democratic leaders said Thursday. Feingold is strongly
opposed to language that would likely give telephone companies that
participated in warrantless surveillance retroactive immunity from
lawsuits.
June 26th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
The rumor is that the Supreme Court will be releasing their decision on DC v. Heller sometime this morning. You might or might not be aware of the issue under that name but it is the case argued in front of the court in March that seeks to determine the Constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s handgun ban.
What has peaked my interest in this would be seeing the reaction if for whatever reason the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court’s decision that the D.C. ban was Unconstitutional. What would make it interesting is how close that decision would be in relation to another Constitutional debate currently going on in regards to FISA reform, which could also be decided today. If all those stars align just right, we would then be able to gage what I believe would be the totally night and day difference between losing 2 of our Constitutional rights.
Often lost in the FISA debate is the fact that passage of that bill will result in our losing part of our 4th Amendment rights by allowing the government to perform warrantless surveillance all under the guise of keeping us safe and to date almost no-one seems to care. Now compare that reaction to the reaction anytime someone tries to control how we as a nation are allowed to own firearms and you see what I am talking about.
I have no idea on which side the Supreme Court will come down on though I suspect the current interpretation 2nd Amendment will win out but it would certainly be an excellent case study on us as a nation if it didn’t. Either way I am still amazed how we are now much more willing than ever to give up certain rights as a result of the times we now must live in. On at least that front, I think the terrorist’s have won.
UPDATE 9:35AM CST - As I thought, the court ruled 5-4 that the ban was unconstitutional so while we won’t be able to compare the outrage, the patting on the back going on over upholding our percieved right to bear arms gives us an insight as to what would have been the response if it had gone the other way. Which happens to be the complete opposite of what is happening with FISA where for the most part we can hear a pin drop…
June 25th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
That is the number of Senators that stood up and voted to kill the FISA bill during a Cloture vote this evening that ended up 80-15 in favor of Cloture. Expect the bill to pass the Senate tomorrow afternoon or early evening giving George Bush his desired Carte Blanche to continue spying and letting AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc. off the hook for their complicity in the illegal program.
No word on which way Barack Obama or Tim Johnson voted yet but I doubt Badlands Blue will be releasing one of Johnson’s patented press releases praising his position after tomorrow’s vote.
UPDATE: 8:35 CST - As expected Tim Johnson voted for Cloture while Obama wimped out as did Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They didn’t show up to put their Cloture votes on record. Now comes all the grandstanding and motions to remove immunity and other provisions that will not go anywhere. Finally, we will get to see if Barack Obama breaks his promise or not.
June 25th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
Don’t open the email.
The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.
I guess that is one way to address the problem, just ignore it or as was the case here, they ignored it until the EPA rewrote it so that it met their criteria.
Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
June 25th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
MTV has announced that they will be doing something they haven’t done since their inception in 1981. Starting this summer the music network will accept political advertising for the first time.
“MTV Networks will accept political advertising that is national in scope, sponsored by a legally qualified candidate, a candidate’s official campaign committee, a nationally recognized political party, or the official congressional campaign committee(s) of a nationally recognized party.”
And as expected it didn’t take long to put a partisan spin on the decision.
Shock: MTV Lifts Ban on Political Advertising for First Time in Outlet’s History
Coincedentally, um, coinciding with Barack Obama’s youth-powered run at the presidency.
Why, one would almost begin to imagine that perhaps the media supports Obama or something.
Um, and other than the fact that no one watching that network has a grandparent as old him, McCain couldn’t buy ads why?
Putting that non-issue aside, if you really wanted to look into conspiracies over at MTV, maybe someone could look into why the music network doesn’t play music anymore…
June 24th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
From Maplight.org via The Left Coaster
On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure–rejecting immunity–on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill–approving immunity.
“Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart?” asked Daniel Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, “Their constituents deserve answers.”
MAPLight.org’s research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
Comparing Democrats’ Votes (March 14th and June 20th votes):
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging: $8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)
88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008). See below for list of these 94 Dems.
And in case you were wondering, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who was one of the 94 Democrats changing their mind on immunity, just so happened to recieve $6000 through telecommunication PAC contributions. But of course it is just a co-incidence, right Stephanie?
June 24th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
I am a huge fan of satellite radio and have had it for almost 5 years with Sirius being my provider of choice. Anyone that must drive any distance in South Dakota will realize that it is a must have to keep your sanity so when someone offers free service for life, I am there! Unfortunately with most freebie’s there is fine print and in this case the free radio just happens to be mounted in a 2009 Lamborghini Murciélago with a MSRP of $392,400.
Ok, so maybe I’m not there.
June 24th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
I will leave it to Bob Ellis to get into the theology behind Focus on the Family’s James Dobson’s comments on Barack Obama’s speech regarding his faith. Not surprisingly Ellis agrees with Dobson but one thing in Dobson’s comments stuck out to me (besides the fruitcake reference). Ellis left it out of his post but Cory over at the Madville Times didn’t.
The proper theological response is, “Amen, brother!” Instead, James Dobson is saying that Obama is “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology…. He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.” For good measure, Dobson also labels Obama’s position on abortion “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.” (emphasis mine)
Obama is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his world view? Isn’t that true with most Bible based religions already? In fact isn’t that true with just about all religion and more importantly, isn’t that exactly what Dobson and Focus on the Family is all about?
There are how many different Bible based religions on this planet with just about everyone having a different “interpretation” of the same book. Priest can marry, or they can’t. Gays can marry, or they can’t. Old Testament, New Testament, and on and on. You could spend a lifetime learning the various differences.
And that is Dobson’s problem. He just can’t deal with the fact that his distorted Bible based world view isn’t as prevalent as he would like and for the first time in a while there isn’t a candidate running for the White House that he can support. In fact this fits right in with an new survey that shows while we are still a spiritual people, we are more understanding and tolerant of the beliefs of others. But unfortunately for Dobson and the shrinking number of his supporters, tolerance isn’t in their vocabulary.
It’s going to be a long 4 years for Dobson, no matter who wins this November…
June 24th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
The outrage in South Dakota over the ongoing FISA re-write happening in Washington has been non-existent (except for me and Cory that is). It seems that our country’s blind faith in our elected officials exists here as well so when President Bush says that he needs this legislation passed to keep us safe, most will say “how soon!” Tim Johnson showed that blind faith last February when he crossed party lines and voted to pass a previous version of this spying bill and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin did likewise on the latest version last week.
Now as the Senate gets ready to debate the House version this week I again will ask Senator Johnson to do the right thing and not give in to the right-wing pressure and treat this like what it is, an assault on the 4th Amendment. Don’t take my word for it, read this article from David Kris, a former high ranking DOJ lawyer in the Bush Administration. The full article is a must read and can be found here but one of his points really stood out.
And you will notice that not once up until now did I mention the telecommunication company immunity issues contained in this same bill. You see, allegedly the Bush administration has been engaged in the above currently illegal surveillance aided by several telcom’s and to date there are 40 or so lawsuits pending that seek to hold these companies accountable for their complicity. This bill would make most of these lawsuits vanish along with any exposure of possible illegal activity by the Bush Administration, sort of like Watergate on civilians with “Deep Throat” being legislated out of existence.
There is little doubt in my mind that Senator Johnson will again vote to approve this bill and unless Barack Obama keeps his promise to filibuster, it will again pass the Senate making it a lock to be signed by the President (after all it is actually more than he asked for). But if for some reason you feel the need to let him know that giving up our rights is a lot easier than getting them back, you can call his office at (202)224-5842 or fax him at (202)228-5765.
June 23rd, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
In the past whenever George Bush would want an increase in power to supposedly “keep us safe” or if a mid-term election was in doubt, he would bring out the terrorism card. Either an attack was imminent or if “so and so” were elected we’d be in trouble. John McCain’s camp must have been paying attention and is now admitting that the such an attack would be beneficial, for McCain that is
On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain’s chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an unfortunate event,” says Black. “But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who’s ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us.” As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black. (emphasis mine)
As you would expect, McCain has since distanced himself from his Charlie Black’s comments but it shows what we have to look forward to for the next few month’s. The terrorism card is about all McCain has to play and he and his advisor’s will surely put it to use as often as Rudy Giuliani played the 9/11 card if not more often. Though I would suspect the next time they will use a slightly different tact…