Quiet Time Ahead

Not gonna' be much here the next three weeks or so, I'm off to Europe for a well-deserved vacation. Will post as access is available...

A Real Knee Slapper For Ya'

How's this for hilarity? GW gives a speech to the Federalist Society 15 November 2007, a speech in which he praises the three branches of government and their roles of checks & balances on each other and the how the President's oath of office commits him to do his best to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." followed by saying I take these words seriously. I believe these words mean what they say. What a laff riot!
Glenn Greenwald has some excellent commentary on this, far more nuanced then mine. All I have to say is remember the Cheney Energy Task Force of 2001? The records from that are still secret. Likewise, I think there are still a couple of requests for oval office documents from the congress that are still open, as well as 5 million or so missing emails. So much for them checks & balances, eh? And certainly a few more little items as well... Rachel Paulose anyone?
haw haw haw shudder

Who Ya' Gonna' Believe?

The current conservative republican president GW, or your own lyin' eyes? Found this story yesterday about FEMA vs. The New Orleans Aquarium that is almost too funny (and very sad/infuriating as well). This post almost wrote itself -

I'm sure you've heard the conservative republican mantra, "it's government that is the problem". Or maybe Reagan 's 'funny. ha ha' words of fear, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you". (Personally, the words that scare me are "Hi, I'm from private industry with a fat, no-bid government and I'm here to help" - who are they here to help, eh?)

Due to the loss of electric power after hurricane Katrina, the employees of the New Orleans Aquarium returned to find their tanks holding thousands of dead fish. Tourism is a mainstay of New Orleans' economy and of course the aquarium wanted to be back up and running ASAP as they're apparently a big tourist draw. FEMA offered over $600,000 to replace their dead stock. There was a catch, of course: GW's FEMA is a stickler for red tape and endless bureaucratic delays. Before FEMA could issue the grant, the aquarium employees managed to restock their tanks and reopen the aquarium, mostly by going out personally and catching the various types of fish they would exhibit. Other aquariums helped out with donations as well. The aquarium then presented their total bill for the restocking, $99,766, to FEMA who then refused to reimburse. The reason they refused? FEMA said the replacement fish had to come from private vendors, apparently the staff catching their own fish was a big 'no-no'. The cost from the private vendors? $616,000. That means that GW's FEMA would only reimburse if the total amount included $516,234 of pork to the private contractors who, of course, do everything faster & cheaper. According to the article, the case has been appealed and may wind up in federal court.

The moral? When someone who asks for your vote insists that government is always the problem and never the solution, believe them, they are a self-fulfilling prophecy, elect them at your peril.

Who/what is the US government again, exactly? I refer you to a quaint piece of parchment, allegedly revered by 'patriotic' Americans, a something called the Declaration of Independence. I believe the first three words of that 'quaint document' are "We, the people". There's your government, folks. I also remember another quote along the lines of "a republic, if you can keep it".

Be Still, My Heart

Maybe there's some good news today, maybe... It looks as if the Senate Judiciary Committee today reported out a version of the FISA bill that does not, repeat, does not offer retroactive immunity for illegal spying of Americans. Think Progress has a good summary.

The legislators at the time of the Sen. Frank Church Committee who were shocked by the revelations of the spying that had occurred against American citizens (COINTELPRO anyone?) were the legislators who wrote the original FISA act. They put criminal sanctions in the bill as they did not trust the government, the criminal sanctions were a means to punish the individuals who actually did the spying and of course the corporations that aided & abetted such spying. Spying on Americans seems ridiculously easy,

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. (Seattlepi.com)

yet the bushies seemed stymied by the need for "useless things" like 'probable cause'. Remember the TIA program? The bushies were determined to get it, by hook or by crook. This of course was the "by crook" method, retroactive immunity for every information supplier that provided unrestricted access. Hear about the Qwest communications insider trading case against CEO Joseph P. Nacchio? He was ultimately convicted of 19 counts of insider trading and was sentenced to six years in prison, yet what he did was pretty much the same as every other Telco 'big cheese' did during the late 90's - early oughts. Why was he alone convicted? His company, Qwest, was the only one to not go along with the bushies' request for illegal access to their networks.

But I'm saying only that this retroactive immunity-free FISA bill version might be good news, not that it is good news. That's because Reid, Pelosi, and all those bush dog dems are still all out there and have proven time & again this last year that they are not to be trusted not to cave when we need them most. I won't be surprised in the slightest should tomorrow's news reveal yet again that the democratic leaders have allowed the retroactive immunity FISA bill version to pass into law and be handed to GW. Please support Sen. Christopher Dodd, he has pledged to both put a hold on a bad version and to filibuster. With luck another 40 dems will be brave enough to stand with him.

Driver's Licenses For Illegals

Ok, maybe one story I can say something concerning. What the !@## does 77% of americans against giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants really mean? I do not understand their problem, do they expect state DMV's to function as Immigration Enforcement? My reasoning is simple, they are here and given the state of mass transit in most US cities, they are gonna drive as - they have to, it's the only way to get around most places. So issue them driver's licenses so they can:
1 - buy liability insurance
2 - register their vehicles
3 - inspect their vehicles.
What in the !@## do 77% of americans not understand regarding this? Immigration enforcement in this country is totally schizophrenic, I refuse to have an opinion until corporate america comes to a resolution with xenophobic america. The fact of the matter is that someone, probably an illegal, hit my truck last year and tried to run but I could still drive so he did not get far. Phony name, no D/L, and of course, no insurance. Fortunately my GEICO uninsured motorist insurance paid off and my truck was fixed. But the guy should have had insurance and his insurance should have paid the claim, not mine. Or is xenophobia more important then fiscal responsibility? D/L or not, registered or not, inspected or not, insured or not, They Will Drive, they HAVE to, as do we all...

Still Too Many Stories!

I cannot begin to adequately address them, save to say the constitutional republic I grew up in is stone cold dead and I'm not sure the defibrillator will bring it back as brain death may have occurred. Go read these folks, they are far more eloquent then I -
firedoglake, digby @ Hullabaloo, Orcinus

& bookmark 'em as well...

Too Many Stories...

... and not nearly enough time to do any of them justice, especially if you're an 8th or 9th tier blog writer with just enough time & energy for a post this PM. But not that it matters -heh - I'm only writing for me.

Tonight I'd like to point you to a story that hasn't drawn very much MSM attention at all, one that nonetheless I think is quite important. There is a certain Mr. Mark Klein, a currently retired San Francisco-based technician for AT&T, who revealed a couple of years ago the existence of a secret surveillance room at the SF telephone exchange run by the NSA. Tonight he is Washington D.C. to lobby against granting retroactive legal immunity to the telcos. The equipment in and cabling to, essentially a fiber-optic line splitter, is sufficient for the NSA to have snooped on every single packet of data that passed through that telephone exchange - email, web browsing, voice, fax, basically whatever came through that cable the NSA has. Furthermore the location of the exchange makes it optimal for collecting domestic traffic, not the foreign communications traffic Bushco claims to have been monitoring, He or at least his information is behind or involved in one of the suits against AT&T that Bushco wishes to have thrown out with the retroactive immunity in the latest FISA bill. Think about it, the reason the telco liability was in the original FISA bill was that those who drafted it did not trust the government, they instead insisted the telcos (and others) be held personally liable for damages as a check against a dishonest NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ. TPM Muckraker has a good summary along with a number of good links, if you're interested, it's a good place to start.

Remember, this sort of installation gives the NSA access to everything, and yes, I do mean access to every single data packet on that cable. Most of us are familiar with the Orwellian aspects of this in terms of Big Brother and political spying. There are other ramifications, however, ones that don't seem to get much discussion, ramifications such as the commercial one. Say your company does IT services and you are bidding for a contract with a potential major customer. Given the absolute politicization of the US Government at this time, the fact that "pay for play" is how things work these days, what's to stop some federal official from contacting a high-level officer of your company, informing them of what the government knows about your company's bid, and mentioning that your competitor has been making greater donations to the RNC then your company has and that for the right price, the official might be willing to share details of your competitor's bid with you or at the very least, offering not to share your bid details with your competitor? "Oh and by the way, these discussions are both deniable and state secrets meaning say anything of this to the media and you will be convicted of treason or disappeared". Think I'm just being paranoid?

If you are not outraged it means you have not been paying attention.

Dianne Feinstein May Be A Democrat...

but democrat Dianne Feinstein is no liberal, no how, least of all a progressive - Madame Senator, your extensive support of bushie nominees and proposals all these last seven only prove to illustrate that 1) you need a new career, one not involving representing Democrats or the Democratic Party Platform & 2) you need a serious primary challenge next time you're up. Jello Biafra back in the Dead Kennedy's day (1986?) summed you up nicely

BTW, the first ten seconds have all one will need, rest is just gravy...

Q - What Is A State Secret in 2007?

A - factual statements that would embarrass the Bushies. Case in point: a certain Abdallah Higazy, the man coerced into "confessing" his "role" in 9/11 after a commercial flight-band transceiver was allegedly found in his NY hotel room. Days later, an airline pilot shows up at the same hotel and asks for his radio back. Oops. After 34 days and many threats later, now Higazi is innocent & free to go. Upset for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the FBI threatening to turn over his family in Egypt where they would have been tortured unless Higazi confessed, he proceeded to sue the hotel and the FBI agent for coercing his confession.

Fast forward to now - recently, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Mr.Higazy could proceed with his lawsuit. A blogger named Howard Bashman posted the ruling on his website How Appealing, Within hours he is ordered by the clerk of the Second Circuit to take down his link as the original posting contained "state secrets". Later the Second Circuit issues a redacted version of the opinion. Blogger Valtin at Daily Kos has done a really great job at creating a post that has many valuable links to all the facts, if you are interested in this you really need to read the post and follow the links. All I will do is provide a summary of the "state secret" that was redacted -

Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, [begin unredacted portion] and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don’t advise people of their rights, they don’t – yeah, probably about torture, sure."

Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn’t prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family’s in danger. If I say this device is mine, I’m screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I’m screwed and my family’s in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine".

If you're interested, you really need to check out the links above. We live in scary times these days, a constitution and bill of rights that are literally just "pieces of parchment". I thought conservative republicans always respected "rule of law" and other quaint notions. Again - oops