We'll include Barack Obama in the mix of politicians that apparently think all you who were following the FISA debates are as dumb as day-old pill bugs, and it's depressing as hell to have to do so. He may be the Democratic nominee, but he can still write a milquetoast, self-congratulatory justification for choosing the easy way out with the best of them.
You know, I don't mind politicians not agreeing with me much of the time. Or most of the time. And at this point, I'm more than used to various parts of our Constitution being considered strictly optional, and being given away like beads at Mardi Gras.
But it does grate, immeasurably, when they feed us bull and tell us it's candy. I had hoped that, given the length of time it took Obama to come up with a statement, they were going to come up with something substantive. Instead, it appears they were using that time to come up with an assortment of logic-insulting bunk.
[...] Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.
No. It will not be "over", it will just be made retroactively legal so that it can continue. I suppose technically the "illegal" part of it will be over, so it isn't technically the baldfaced lie it sounds like -- so kudos for bending the language like Beckham, but that's not really what most people would consider that phrase to mean.
It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
No, it really doesn't. Because FISA never went away -- it doesn't need "restoring". FISA is FISA. It was FISA, it is FISA. The only reason FISA would need "restoring" is if we are all willing to accept that it had been invalidated entirely by the president's actions -- that the president was not only able to simply break the law, but managed to erase it from the books entirely on his own say-so.
That's absurd. That's asinine. A law does not need "restoring" when it is violated, it needs enforcing. And given that the Democrats have latched onto a piece of legislation designed explicitly to prevent that from ever happening in any meaningful way, there is nothing to be the slightest bit proud of. It is complete acceptance of an illegal program, dressed up as hard-fought victory, and by God the Democrats responsible for it and voting for it, Obama included, naturally presume that if they type up some lovely-sounding bullcrap about it, they'll be able to pretend it is something other than strategically planned and executed cowardice in the face of lawbreaking.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. [...]
The glowing embrace of the right-wing and administration logic used to foist corporate immunity to lawbreaking upon us: President Bush is so terribly put upon that he cannot possibly follow existing law in conducting espionage against American citizens, and nobody should expect him to, so we must urgently change the law.
But FISA was not expiring. FISA was not falling into a legislative black hole. It continued to exist, as the exclusive means for electronic surveillance of the American people, and all it required was a warrant, and all the warrant required was probable cause. That's it. That's what this entire, months-long parade of panic, bluster and torn hair has been about, that it was just too damn difficult for the administration to be asked to show two sentences of probable cause to a judge in a secret hearing before collecting whatever electronic information about you, your neighbors, your family, your friends, everyone in your town, everyone in your social organizations, everyone in every restaurant you've ever been to, etc., etc., etc. they wanted to collect.
And if you object to it, then even Barack Obama will hold the threat of imminent Terror over your head as justification for why we should ignore past violations of Constitutional rights and declare a massive, flag-waving, star-spangled do over that simply declares there's no more problem.
Oh, but don't worry. The Bush administration is charged with coming up with a "thorough review" of what the Bush administration did, in order to tell us all about whether or not they did anything wrong. Yes, let's all stand in awe that, after all that has happened the last seven years, there are still entire collections of Democrats who think that having the administration investigate itself will solve the problem. I'm not sure whether to laugh, to cry, or to simply throw my hands up at the whole thing.
I'm not sure which frightens me more, the thought that the people leading my nation could be so damn gullible, or the thought that they aren't -- but they're counting on us to be. If the Democrats are going to be so fired up about demanding that they be allowed cave on basic protections, lest the Republicans treat them cruelly in future elections, they could at least have the decency to not insult our intelligence while they're doing it.
That is my primary objection, here. Democrats: if you're going to cave, just cave. Don't draft up flagrantly insulting talking points that pretend you've gotten something in return -- you haven't. You haven't gotten squat, except for the knowledge that the illegal is now legal, that past illegalities will be swept under the rug, and that future illegalities will be met with no action more substantive than a few harshly worded reports.
We all know how much money the telecommunications companies spent "lobbying" you for this legislation; fine. So just come out and say it -- you can't piss off corporate contributors that are that important, so the Fourth Amendment can go suck eggs. We all know you don't have any confidence you can both stand up for the rule of law and get reelected in the face of conservative demands that our laws be considered obsolete in the face of our own pants-wetting fear; fine. So just say that, and quit painting us as rubes who won't know any better if you shove a few noble-sounding sentences our way.
It's beyond insulting.
We'll include Barack Obama in the mix of politicians that apparently think all you who were following the FISA debates are as dumb as day-old pill bugs, and it's depressing as hell to have to do so. He may be the Democratic nominee, but he can still write a milquetoast, self-congratulatory justification for choosing the easy way out with the best of them.
You know, I don't mind politicians not agreeing with me much of the time. Or most of the time. And at this point, I'm more than used to various parts of our Constitution being considered strictly optional, and being given away like beads at Mardi Gras.
But it does grate, immeasurably, when they feed us bull and tell us it's candy. I had hoped that, given the length of time it took Obama to come up with a statement, they were going to come up with something substantive. Instead, it appears they were using that time to come up with an assortment of logic-insulting bunk.
[...] Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.
No. It will not be "over", it will just be made retroactively legal so that it can continue. I suppose technically the "illegal" part of it will be over, so it isn't technically the baldfaced lie it sounds like -- so kudos for bending the language like Beckham, but that's not really what most people would consider that phrase to mean.
It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
No, it really doesn't. Because FISA never went away -- it doesn't need "restoring". FISA is FISA. It was FISA, it is FISA. The only reason FISA would need "restoring" is if we are all willing to accept that it had been invalidated entirely by the president's actions -- that the president was not only able to simply break the law, but managed to erase it from the books entirely on his own say-so.
That's absurd. That's asinine. A law does not need "restoring" when it is violated, it needs enforcing. And given that the Democrats have latched onto a piece of legislation designed explicitly to prevent that from ever happening in any meaningful way, there is nothing to be the slightest bit proud of. It is complete acceptance of an illegal program, dressed up as hard-fought victory, and by God the Democrats responsible for it and voting for it, Obama included, naturally presume that if they type up some lovely-sounding bullcrap about it, they'll be able to pretend it is something other than strategically planned and executed cowardice in the face of lawbreaking.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. [...]
The glowing embrace of the right-wing and administration logic used to foist corporate immunity to lawbreaking upon us: President Bush is so terribly put upon that he cannot possibly follow existing law in conducting espionage against American citizens, and nobody should expect him to, so we must urgently change the law.
But FISA was not expiring. FISA was not falling into a legislative black hole. It continued to exist, as the exclusive means for electronic surveillance of the American people, and all it required was a warrant, and all the warrant required was probable cause. That's it. That's what this entire, months-long parade of panic, bluster and torn hair has been about, that it was just too damn difficult for the administration to be asked to show two sentences of probable cause to a judge in a secret hearing before collecting whatever electronic information about you, your neighbors, your family, your friends, everyone in your town, everyone in your social organizations, everyone in every restaurant you've ever been to, etc., etc., etc. they wanted to collect.
And if you object to it, then even Barack Obama will hold the threat of imminent Terror over your head as justification for why we should ignore past violations of Constitutional rights and declare a massive, flag-waving, star-spangled do over that simply declares there's no more problem.
Oh, but don't worry. The Bush administration is charged with coming up with a "thorough review" of what the Bush administration did, in order to tell us all about whether or not they did anything wrong. Yes, let's all stand in awe that, after all that has happened the last seven years, there are still entire collections of Democrats who think that having the administration investigate itself will solve the problem. I'm not sure whether to laugh, to cry, or to simply throw my hands up at the whole thing.
I'm not sure which frightens me more, the thought that the people leading my nation could be so damn gullible, or the thought that they aren't -- but they're counting on us to be. If the Democrats are going to be so fired up about demanding that they be allowed cave on basic protections, lest the Republicans treat them cruelly in future elections, they could at least have the decency to not insult our intelligence while they're doing it.
That is my primary objection, here. Democrats: if you're going to cave, just cave. Don't draft up flagrantly insulting talking points that pretend you've gotten something in return -- you haven't. You haven't gotten squat, except for the knowledge that the illegal is now legal, that past illegalities will be swept under the rug, and that future illegalities will be met with no action more substantive than a few harshly worded reports.
We all know how much money the telecommunications companies spent "lobbying" you for this legislation; fine. So just come out and say it -- you can't piss off corporate contributors that are that important, so the Fourth Amendment can go suck eggs. We all know you don't have any confidence you can both stand up for the rule of law and get reelected in the face of conservative demands that our laws be considered obsolete in the face of our own pants-wetting fear; fine. So just say that, and quit painting us as rubes who won't know any better if you shove a few noble-sounding sentences our way.
It's beyond insulting.
Orange to Blue candidate Darcy Burner:
Hi, this is Darcy Burner, running for Congress in Washington's 8th congressional district. Like many of you, I'm incredibly disappointed with today's vote on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. I've made my position on this issue very clear, and I've been happy to be fighting to ensure that we uphold the Constitution through all of this. But the real question is what we do going forward. We need to make sure that we elect people to Congress who are going to defend the Constitution at the same time that the keep this country safe. I promise you, I will never let you down on that. It's time for us to elect more and better Democrats.
Orange to Blue candidate Darcy Burner:
Hi, this is Darcy Burner, running for Congress in Washington's 8th congressional district. Like many of you, I'm incredibly disappointed with today's vote on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. I've made my position on this issue very clear, and I've been happy to be fighting to ensure that we uphold the Constitution through all of this. But the real question is what we do going forward. We need to make sure that we elect people to Congress who are going to defend the Constitution at the same time that the keep this country safe. I promise you, I will never let you down on that. It's time for us to elect more and better Democrats.
It may be a little dicey to try and link any single weather event to human induced global warming; climate is so complex that just hard boiling an egg could theoretically cause a tornado! But a new report issued by government climate researchers states that overall, extreme weather events including record floods, blizzards, and heat waves are consistent with and likely a product of global climate change produced by man-made greenhouse gases:
USA Today -- If you think the weather is getting more extreme, you're right — and global warming caused by human activity probably is the reason, according to a report released Thursday by a panel of government scientists.
This isn't something that's happening only in equatorial third-world nations or centuries down the road; the report and others like it conclude it's happening here and it's happening now. Cue the anti-science right-wing noise machine which hasn't gotten the Bush-McCain memo that climate change is real to go all split-personality and shriek 1) It's all a fake alarmist plot by Al Gore and 2) Climate change is the democrats' fault that can only be alleviated by more offshore drilling. Oh, and I'd have been happy to link and quote the AP article, but apparently they and their paying advertisers don't like thousands of blog directed hits.
It may be a little dicey to try and link any single weather event to human induced global warming; climate is so complex that just hard boiling an egg could theoretically cause a tornado! But a new report issued by government climate researchers states that overall, extreme weather events including record floods, blizzards, and heat waves are consistent with and likely a product of global climate change produced by man-made greenhouse gases:
USA Today -- If you think the weather is getting more extreme, you're right — and global warming caused by human activity probably is the reason, according to a report released Thursday by a panel of government scientists.
This isn't something that's happening only in equatorial third-world nations or centuries down the road; the report and others like it conclude it's happening here and it's happening now. Cue the anti-science right-wing noise machine which hasn't gotten the Bush-McCain memo that climate change is real to go all split-personality and shriek 1) It's all a fake alarmist plot by Al Gore and 2) Climate change is the democrats' fault that can only be alleviated by more offshore drilling. Oh, and I'd have been happy to link and quote the AP article, but apparently they and their paying advertisers don't like thousands of blog directed hits.
So, this has been an interesting week. All the polls have Obama ahead (you can't find a single one that has McCain in the lead
including a new Ipsos poll, and Newsweek has Obama leading by a whopping 15.) Republican and conservative pundits are waxing wroth over Obama (their message is "Obama is everything I despise in a politician: a Democrat that can win"), though they manage to say it in astoundingly different ways. He's too strong, he's too weak, he's too something.
Democrats, meanwhile are uniting behind their candidate. Obama has wide leads with women, Latinos, the electoral college, and enthusiasm of supporters. But Obama supporters are also realizing that when Obama runs to the middle, the traditional thing that candidates do to win elections in the U.S., some cherished programs are going to get short shrift. I'm not talking about public financing, which no one really cares about (Norm Ornstein wins the prize for commentary):
What I told a bunch of people a few weeks ago," said Ornstein, "is that while it would be nice if he decided he felt honor bound to stay within the system and take the money, if he did so I might join a group of people who sued him for political malpractice. When you have the ability to raise the kind of money that he could raise and do it without selling your soul to spend all the time between now and the election on fundraisers, your goal is to win an election and not turn your back on the people voting. There will be outraged editorials and McCain will be justifiably pissed. But it was pragmatically the right decision for him to make."
Another good one was from The Note:
The calculation really wasn't all that difficult: Obama trades maybe (generously) a few thousand people who care deeply about campaign-finance reform, for maybe (surely) a few million people who will hear his message because he has an extra couple hundred million dollars to spend.
No, not campaign finance. I'm talking about FISA. Actually, yesterday we were all talking about FISA.
Still, as disappointed as I am about what passed the House, I suppose it's good to focus on Obama's intent to run as a candidate from the center. Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the "Obambi" slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations.
I really dislike the Democrats' rationale for voting for FISA, including Obama's. OTOH, I think the criticism over Obama taking himself out of public financing is silly. The entire campaign finance system is rotten, and Obama is going to publicly finance via small donors, an eminently more fair system than depending on corporate dollars funneled to the RNC and 527's as in past years (that McCain isn't generating 527's at this point is irrelevant – he's not generating much of anything). I heard Charlie Gibson complaining about fairness last night on World News because of Obama's fundraising, without mentioning the usual Republican advantage in fundraising in most elections (IOKIYAR, I guess). But like it or not, we are going to see Obama consider moderate and conservative VPs before he chooses someone, he'll consider Republicans for Defense (a mistake to appoint, but not a mistake to consider), and he'll do a bunch of other things in the name of party unity to piss us and the talking heads off, all while enhancing his chances to win.
When he screws up, he'll need us to hold his feet to the fire (and we will: see No Republican at Defense and A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems and FISA posts from yesterday). But that's a discussion I am happy to have, rather than inane ones that no one cares about, like flag pins and campaign finance reform, and whether or not David Brooks or David Broder (each of whom never met a Republican he didn't like) is disappointed in Barack Obama. The election season is upon us, and personally, I couldn't be happier. It means we are one step closer to getting that walking disaster out of the White House, and don't lose sight (even for a moment) of what that means and which party George Bush presides over. And if it means treating our candidate like the imperfect vessel he is, warts and all, so be it. Our guy is head and shoulders above their guy, and it's going to be fun to prove it, FISA notwithstanding.
So, this has been an interesting week. All the polls have Obama ahead (you can't find a single one that has McCain in the lead including a new Ipsos poll, and Newsweek has Obama leading by a whopping 15.) Republican and conservative pundits are waxing wroth over Obama (their message is "Obama is everything I despise in a politician: a Democrat that can win"), though they manage to say it in astoundingly different ways. He's too strong, he's too weak, he's too something.
Democrats, meanwhile are uniting behind their candidate. Obama has wide leads with women, Latinos, the electoral college, and enthusiasm of supporters. But Obama supporters are also realizing that when Obama runs to the middle, the traditional thing that candidates do to win elections in the U.S., some cherished programs are going to get short shrift. I'm not talking about public financing, which no one really cares about (Norm Ornstein wins the prize for commentary):
What I told a bunch of people a few weeks ago," said Ornstein, "is that while it would be nice if he decided he felt honor bound to stay within the system and take the money, if he did so I might join a group of people who sued him for political malpractice. When you have the ability to raise the kind of money that he could raise and do it without selling your soul to spend all the time between now and the election on fundraisers, your goal is to win an election and not turn your back on the people voting. There will be outraged editorials and McCain will be justifiably pissed. But it was pragmatically the right decision for him to make."
Another good one was from The Note:
The calculation really wasn't all that difficult: Obama trades maybe (generously) a few thousand people who care deeply about campaign-finance reform, for maybe (surely) a few million people who will hear his message because he has an extra couple hundred million dollars to spend.
No, not campaign finance. I'm talking about FISA. Actually, yesterday we were all talking about FISA.
Still, as disappointed as I am about what passed the House, I suppose it's good to focus on Obama's intent to run as a candidate from the center. Too many people have too many unwarranted expectations about what Obama would do as President. At the same time, Obama is sending a clear message that he intends to run pragmatically, and has the toughness to do so. Whether it's FISA or campaign finance, that means making some people unhappy. Running to the center means increasing his chances of winning and the size of the win, and it also means that the "Obambi" slurs (weakness, no substance) are badly missing the mark. I'm not suggesting we suck it up and like everything he does, I'm suggesting we be realistic about expectations.
I really dislike the Democrats' rationale for voting for FISA, including Obama's. OTOH, I think the criticism over Obama taking himself out of public financing is silly. The entire campaign finance system is rotten, and Obama is going to publicly finance via small donors, an eminently more fair system than depending on corporate dollars funneled to the RNC and 527's as in past years (that McCain isn't generating 527's at this point is irrelevant – he's not generating much of anything). I heard Charlie Gibson complaining about fairness last night on World News because of Obama's fundraising, without mentioning the usual Republican advantage in fundraising in most elections (IOKIYAR, I guess). But like it or not, we are going to see Obama consider moderate and conservative VPs before he chooses someone, he'll consider Republicans for Defense (a mistake to appoint, but not a mistake to consider), and he'll do a bunch of other things in the name of party unity to piss us and the talking heads off, all while enhancing his chances to win.
When he screws up, he'll need us to hold his feet to the fire (and we will: see No Republican at Defense and A warning to pro-capitulation House Dems and FISA posts from yesterday). But that's a discussion I am happy to have, rather than inane ones that no one cares about, like flag pins and campaign finance reform, and whether or not David Brooks or David Broder (each of whom never met a Republican he didn't like) is disappointed in Barack Obama. The election season is upon us, and personally, I couldn't be happier. It means we are one step closer to getting that walking disaster out of the White House, and don't lose sight (even for a moment) of what that means and which party George Bush presides over. And if it means treating our candidate like the imperfect vessel he is, warts and all, so be it. Our guy is head and shoulders above their guy, and it's going to be fun to prove it, FISA notwithstanding.
Fundamentalist zealotry and creationist ideology may have conspired to leave at least one and possibly more public school students with permanent physical and mental scars at the hands of what can only be described as a dangerous, rogue teacher::
Ed Brayton -- A science teacher used a high voltage device to burn that cross into an 8th grader's arm, for crying out loud. Not only should he have been fired on the spot, the case should have been referred to the prosecutor's office. ... The complaint also alleges that Freshwater has "code words" that he uses to let his students know when he thinks something in the textbook is false and contrary to the Bible. It further alleges that he offered extra credit to students for homework related to intelligent design.
[Update 9:40 AM EDT] Sounds like the guy has admited to the branding, his 'explanation' is bewildering too say the least and more than a little creepy. Again it sure looks some school adminstrators may be culpable here:
Columbus Dispatch -- The report confirms that Freshwater burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December. Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses.
Ed has an update on the fate of the teacher and lots more along with a link to the complaint. And egad, speaking purely for myself, if even a portion of it is true, more heads should roll. Because as the teacher likely heads for the unemployment line, no doubt along with right-wing Martyrdom, it sure sounds to me like someone had to have covered for this lunatic for years.
A top U.S. health official says the threat of a flu pandemic remains high. And while the world has made great strides to prepare, it's not enough.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Julie Gerberding says bird flu fatigue among countries and the public is a growing concern.
(DemFromCT)
Fundamentalist zealotry and creationist ideology may have conspired to leave at least one and possibly more public school students with permanent physical and mental scars at the hands of what can only be described as a dangerous, rogue teacher::
Ed Brayton -- A science teacher used a high voltage device to burn that cross into an 8th grader's arm, for crying out loud. Not only should he have been fired on the spot, the case should have been referred to the prosecutor's office. ... The complaint also alleges that Freshwater has "code words" that he uses to let his students know when he thinks something in the textbook is false and contrary to the Bible. It further alleges that he offered extra credit to students for homework related to intelligent design.
[Update 9:40 AM EDT] Sounds like the guy has admited to the branding, his 'explanation' is bewildering too say the least and more than a little creepy. Again it sure looks some school adminstrators may be culpable here:
Columbus Dispatch -- The report confirms that Freshwater burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December. Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses.
Ed has an update on the fate of the teacher and lots more along with a link to the complaint. And egad, speaking purely for myself, if even a portion of it is true, more heads should roll. Because as the teacher likely heads for the unemployment line, no doubt along with right-wing Martyrdom, it sure sounds to me like someone had to have covered for this lunatic for years.
A top U.S. health official says the threat of a flu pandemic remains high. And while the world has made great strides to prepare, it's not enough.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Julie Gerberding says bird flu fatigue among countries and the public is a growing concern.
(DemFromCT)
Here's a quote that should haunt Pelosi and Hoyer for their part in this debacle:
The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. "I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get," said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
Jeers to Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and 105 Democratic representatives, including Nancy Boyda, Mike Arcuri, and Tim Mahoney, all of whom I lauded on these pages in the past week for their previous principled stances in support of the Constitution.
On the other hand, cheers to you, all the people here at Daily Kos and throughout the blogosphere who made this vote difficult for them. Your efforts--phone calling, faxing, e-mailing and face-to-face meetings made this fight last as long as it has. You raised hell with our Democratic Congress, and as a result, we've got a clear list of who is going to stand with us and with the Constitution going forward. That's valuable information.
Just to solidify what our actions have meant since last August--when they snuck through the odious Protect America Act and promised to come back with more, with telco amnesty--here's George Washington law professor Jonathon Turley on last night's Countdown.
OLBERMANN: Have the Democrats blinked or Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are going to kill this in the Senate?
TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.
I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.
It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful.
Cheers as well to Chris Dodd who started all this, and Russ Feingold, who called this bill what it really is, capitulation. They need to know that we will have their backs if they try to fight this through procedural means (against the odds since Rockefeller almost certainly has his 60 vote majority to force this bill through) because they are doing the right thing, trying to protect the Constitution. They need to hear from us, as does the entire Senate.
Particularly, Barack Obama and Harry Reid need to be held to their promise to strip amnesty from the bill.
But for now, for tonight, let me reiterate my how proud I am of what you, and everyone in the blogosphere, have done to keep this issue at the fore. You've done your job as citizens of this great country.
Here's a quote that should haunt Pelosi and Hoyer for their part in this debacle:
The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. "I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get," said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.
Jeers to Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and 105 Democratic representatives, including Nancy Boyda, Mike Arcuri, and Tim Mahoney, all of whom I lauded on these pages in the past week for their previous principled stances in support of the Constitution.
On the other hand, cheers to you, all the people here at Daily Kos and throughout the blogosphere who made this vote difficult for them. Your efforts--phone calling, faxing, e-mailing and face-to-face meetings made this fight last as long as it has. You raised hell with our Democratic Congress, and as a result, we've got a clear list of who is going to stand with us and with the Constitution going forward. That's valuable information.
Just to solidify what our actions have meant since last August--when they snuck through the odious Protect America Act and promised to come back with more, with telco amnesty--here's George Washington law professor Jonathon Turley on last night's Countdown.
OLBERMANN: Have the Democrats blinked or Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are going to kill this in the Senate?
TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.
I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.
It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful.
Cheers as well to Chris Dodd who started all this, and Russ Feingold, who called this bill what it really is, capitulation. They need to know that we will have their backs if they try to fight this through procedural means (against the odds since Rockefeller almost certainly has his 60 vote majority to force this bill through) because they are doing the right thing, trying to protect the Constitution. They need to hear from us, as does the entire Senate.
Particularly, Barack Obama and Harry Reid need to be held to their promise to strip amnesty from the bill.
But for now, for tonight, let me reiterate my how proud I am of what you, and everyone in the blogosphere, have done to keep this issue at the fore. You've done your job as citizens of this great country.
Tonight's Rescue Rangers are ybruti, PaintyKat, ezdidit, srkp23, Bent Liberal and joyful, with Got a Grip donning the Robes of Objectivity.
Today, the first day of summer, is a busy day in history. In 1782, Congress approved the Great Seal of the United States. 55 years later Queen Victoria rose to the throne. Lizzy Borden was found innocent of axing her parents to death in 1893. Detroit saw race riots on this date in 1943, while Bugsy Siegel ate hot lead in 1947. The U.S. and Soviet Union agreed to set up the "red phone" in 1963, while this day in 1967 saw Muhammad Ali convicted of dodging the draft.
But the minions of irony want to share this little pearl. On June 20th, 2003, Scott McClellan was tapped by George Bush to be his new press secretary. Today, five years later, Scott McClellan gave testimony before Congress recounting wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Bush and assorted other officials and cronies.
Good times.....
Science, or Lack Thereof...
Anger Management...
Wars, and Rumors of Wars...
Politics, Shmolitics...
jotter has High Impact Diaries - June 19, 2008.
carolita has Top Comments 6-20-08 -- Accountability Edition.
Please feel free to use this as an Open Thread and to rescue and chat about your favorite diaries of the day!
Tonight's Rescue Rangers are ybruti, PaintyKat, ezdidit, srkp23, Bent Liberal and joyful, with Got a Grip donning the Robes of Objectivity.
Today, the first day of summer, is a busy day in history. In 1782, Congress approved the Great Seal of the United States. 55 years later Queen Victoria rose to the throne. Lizzy Borden was found innocent of axing her parents to death in 1893. Detroit saw race riots on this date in 1943, while Bugsy Siegel ate hot lead in 1947. The U.S. and Soviet Union agreed to set up the "red phone" in 1963, while this day in 1967 saw Muhammad Ali convicted of dodging the draft.
But the minions of irony want to share this little pearl. On June 20th, 2003, Scott McClellan was tapped by George Bush to be his new press secretary. Today, five years later, Scott McClellan gave testimony before Congress recounting wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Bush and assorted other officials and cronies.
Good times.....
Science, or Lack Thereof...
Anger Management...
Wars, and Rumors of Wars...
Politics, Shmolitics...
jotter has High Impact Diaries - June 19, 2008.
carolita has Top Comments 6-20-08 -- Accountability Edition.
Please feel free to use this as an Open Thread and to rescue and chat about your favorite diaries of the day!
What is McCain's current slogan?
An American leader for America ready to lead Americans on Day One?
In any case, whatever it is he's currently using really does suck. So let's help him out and come up with some great slogans for his campaign. And bonus points if you can fit it on a bumper sticker!
What is McCain's current slogan?
An American leader for America ready to lead Americans on Day One?
In any case, whatever it is he's currently using really does suck. So let's help him out and come up with some great slogans for his campaign. And bonus points if you can fit it on a bumper sticker!
After eight years of a photo-op presidency, John McCain is ready to step in on day one:
An aide to Iowa's governor said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.
McCain toured flood-damaged sites in Iowa on Thursday, including the town of Columbus Junction in the southeast. [...]
Patrick Dillon, Gov. Chet Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.
McCain's campaign claimed that no resources were diverted. Of course they also claim that McCain is a straight talking maverick.
After eight years of a photo-op presidency, John McCain is ready to step in on day one:
An aide to Iowa's governor said Thursday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain ignored the governor's request to cancel a campaign visit amid a massive flood recovery effort in the state.
McCain toured flood-damaged sites in Iowa on Thursday, including the town of Columbus Junction in the southeast. [...]
Patrick Dillon, Gov. Chet Culver's chief of staff, said the governor was concerned that McCain's trip would divert local law enforcement from the flood recovery effort to provide security for McCain.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama canceled a scheduled visit to eastern Iowa last week at the request of state officials.
McCain's campaign claimed that no resources were diverted. Of course they also claim that McCain is a straight talking maverick.
Orange to Blue candidate Jim Himes, running against Chris Shays, has this to say on FISA:
"In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide-- not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration's request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles."
Update: Keep in mind Himes is one of our Orange to Blue candidates and could use some love on this day when we realize just how badly we want not only more, but better, Democrats. SusanG
Orange to Blue candidate Jim Himes, running against Chris Shays, has this to say on FISA:
"In Congress, I will always stand up for the fundamental American belief that no man, and no corporation, is above the law. As always, this is a matter for the courts to decide-- not for Congress, and absolutely not for the same Bush Administration who may have violated the law in the first place. It is great to see so many American citizens of all backgrounds coming together to stand up for the rule of law and in opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who may have illegally spied on American citizens at the Bush Administration's request. I am disappointed that Chris Shays and so many others continue to stand with President Bush by refusing to stand up for this most fundamental of American principles."
Update: Keep in mind Himes is one of our Orange to Blue candidates and could use some love on this day when we realize just how badly we want not only more, but better, Democrats. SusanG
Comments yesterday from Nancy Pelosi, via reporter Karen Tumulty at Time:
[I]t makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.
But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon.
Of course, it is about "enforcement" if you determine that "enforcement" of the law means "blanket immunity for anyone who breaks it." The bill directs the courts to dismiss all lawsuits against the telecommunications companies if the Bush administration directs them to, based on evidence which is required to remain secret but which may be as meager as an assertion that the company was told by the President that he had the authority to demand of them whatever-it-is-they-did. Which is also secret.
That's a hell of a compromise, don't you think? Can't you just smell the "enforcement" of basic Constitutional rights, there? Certainly worth a little self-congratulation from the Speaker of the House for standing up for us. Because at heart, Nancy Pelosi thinks you're too stupid to figure out the difference between "enforcement" and "amnesty".
But what's even better is that, in the span of two statements, Pelosi says that this bill is dependent on the President of the United States following the law... and praises the law for sternly "reaffirming" the law he already broke. Well, hell, you should feel confident now. And if he breaks the law again, of course -- no problem. Because we'll just pass another law making it retroactively legal again, and call that a great victory too.
Today, Pelosi stated:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.
But of course, FISA was already the authority under which the government conducted electronic surveillance. It's fine and grand to "reaffirm" that, but if you're "reaffirming" it in one breath and immunizing all violations in the next, you'd have to really think your constituents were stone-cold stupid to count that a victory.
Pelosi's right about one thing, though. This is a democracy, not a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king would just violate the law at will, and nobody would say a word. In a democracy, the President gets to violate the law at will, and we'll jump through months of hoops to change the law so that he retroactively didn't violate it. You'd have to be stupid not to see the difference.
Comments yesterday from Nancy Pelosi, via reporter Karen Tumulty at Time:
[I]t makes progress in the right direction. But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department. So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.
But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon.
Of course, it is about "enforcement" if you determine that "enforcement" of the law means "blanket immunity for anyone who breaks it." The bill directs the courts to dismiss all lawsuits against the telecommunications companies if the Bush administration directs them to, based on evidence which is required to remain secret but which may be as meager as an assertion that the company was told by the President that he had the authority to demand of them whatever-it-is-they-did. Which is also secret.
That's a hell of a compromise, don't you think? Can't you just smell the "enforcement" of basic Constitutional rights, there? Certainly worth a little self-congratulation from the Speaker of the House for standing up for us. Because at heart, Nancy Pelosi thinks you're too stupid to figure out the difference between "enforcement" and "amnesty".
But what's even better is that, in the span of two statements, Pelosi says that this bill is dependent on the President of the United States following the law... and praises the law for sternly "reaffirming" the law he already broke. Well, hell, you should feel confident now. And if he breaks the law again, of course -- no problem. Because we'll just pass another law making it retroactively legal again, and call that a great victory too.
Today, Pelosi stated:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.
But of course, FISA was already the authority under which the government conducted electronic surveillance. It's fine and grand to "reaffirm" that, but if you're "reaffirming" it in one breath and immunizing all violations in the next, you'd have to really think your constituents were stone-cold stupid to count that a victory.
Pelosi's right about one thing, though. This is a democracy, not a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king would just violate the law at will, and nobody would say a word. In a democracy, the President gets to violate the law at will, and we'll jump through months of hoops to change the law so that he retroactively didn't violate it. You'd have to be stupid not to see the difference.
Statement from Rahm Emanuel yesterday, lauding the FISA "agreement":
The FISA legislation we will consider gives our intelligence community the tools it needs and the public the civil liberty protections it deserves. In addition, it rejects calls for automatic immunity for private sector companies. While this bill isn’t perfect, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. I applaud the Democrats and Republicans who reached this compromise and produced legislation that deserves support from both sides of the aisle.
Of course, Emanuel is correct: the bill doesn't give automatic immunity to the phone companies. It instead cleverly shifts the calls for immunity to the courts -- directing them to automatically grant that immunity to any company that was told by the President that what he was asking for was legal. And since we know the President went to the phone companies arguing that FISA-less, warrantless, anti-Constitutional domestic espionage was now legal because he said so, that's the end of that.
But hey, Rahm Emanuel thinks you're too stupid to understand that. Or perhaps he just doesn't care.
After all, Emanuel says these are the "civil liberty protections" you "deserve." If the President said it, that makes it legal, and if you don't like that new interpretation of your rights, hey -- you're just against "compromise." In this case, "compromise" means blanket immunity for everyone involved: they don't have to prove that what they were doing was legal -- because they can't, we know it violated the law -- they just have to prove that the President told them to do it anyway, and we'll just forget the whole thing. And let them keep doing it. And they don't actually have to come clean on the extent of what "it" was, or is.
According to Emanuel, that's all the protection you "deserve." All this violating-the-law nonsense is just water under the bridge, if your company has enough lobbyists.
Statement from Rahm Emanuel yesterday, lauding the FISA "agreement":
The FISA legislation we will consider gives our intelligence community the tools it needs and the public the civil liberty protections it deserves. In addition, it rejects calls for automatic immunity for private sector companies. While this bill isn’t perfect, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. I applaud the Democrats and Republicans who reached this compromise and produced legislation that deserves support from both sides of the aisle.
Of course, Emanuel is correct: the bill doesn't give automatic immunity to the phone companies. It instead cleverly shifts the calls for immunity to the courts -- directing them to automatically grant that immunity to any company that was told by the President that what he was asking for was legal. And since we know the President went to the phone companies arguing that FISA-less, warrantless, anti-Constitutional domestic espionage was now legal because he said so, that's the end of that.
But hey, Rahm Emanuel thinks you're too stupid to understand that. Or perhaps he just doesn't care.
After all, Emanuel says these are the "civil liberty protections" you "deserve." If the President said it, that makes it legal, and if you don't like that new interpretation of your rights, hey -- you're just against "compromise." In this case, "compromise" means blanket immunity for everyone involved: they don't have to prove that what they were doing was legal -- because they can't, we know it violated the law -- they just have to prove that the President told them to do it anyway, and we'll just forget the whole thing. And let them keep doing it. And they don't actually have to come clean on the extent of what "it" was, or is.
According to Emanuel, that's all the protection you "deserve." All this violating-the-law nonsense is just water under the bridge, if your company has enough lobbyists.
Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....
Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....
The FISA Amendments Act has however generated controversy in some circles [HAND GESTURE].
"I don't have a formal opening statement."
Liberal critics contend that its provisions amount to a constitutional farce.
"I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature."
[CAMERA RIGHT] But supporters point out [HAND GESTURE] that it is a "strong bill".
"This bill represents a strong compromise between Republicans and Democrats, giving our intelligence officials the tools they need to keep America safe and strengthen civil liberties protections," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"I don't recall specific concerns."
Most Democrats in Congress appear to concede that the compromise strikes the right balance [HAND GESTURE] between civil liberties and unchecked government surveillance.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the new bill "balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements." [...]
"I don't remember doing something with this information."
Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the bill "will prevent any repeat of warrantless surveillance undertaken by the president and will hold our government accountable for its actions, past and future, through strengthened court review and congressional oversight."
"I don't remember doing that."
In many ways the bill mirrors the warrantless wiretapping program that President Bush secrectly began using in 2001.
But supporters say it also creates a legal framework for spying activities that will include significant oversight from Congress and the federal courts. [...]
"I don't recall being aware of any particular memoranda."
To address the inevitable spying that will occur on Americans in these communications, the legislation includes a number of provisions lawmakers believe will safeguard the privacy and rights of U.S. citizens.
"I don't know that I was aware of those."
In what supporters described as "rare cases," in which "critical intelligence could be lost," eavesdropping could begin before a court has an opportunity to authorize it.
"I mean, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of decisions made every day. This was one."
In such cases, officials would have to submit their surveillance plan within a week and the court would rule within a month.
"I don't know precisely when, and I cannot discuss it further without getting into classified information."
What critics of the bill fail to acknowledge is that it provides a key role for each branch of Government.
It assigns responsibilities jointly to the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to ensure that the Nation's chief law enforcement and intelligence officials work together in collecting foreign intelligence in accordance with the law. It requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) to review and approve, or order modifications to, the procedures required by the Act and to ensure that those procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
"I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it."
And it requires that information about the implementation of these new procedures be reported to Congress, to ensure that Congress can fulfill its oversight role.
"I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before."
At least annually, the AG and DNI must submit to the FISA Court for review and approval targeting procedures for making that fundamental determination.
"I don't know when I became aware of that."
The Act provides for multiple levels of oversight both within the Executive Branch, including by Department of Justice and Intelligence Community Inspectors General, and in regular reporting to both the Congress and the FISA Court.
"My memory is not perfect."
[SHOULDER SHRUG, SMILE CAMERA LEFT]
The FISA Amendments Act has however generated controversy in some circles [HAND GESTURE].
"I don't have a formal opening statement."
Liberal critics contend that its provisions amount to a constitutional farce.
"I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature."
[CAMERA RIGHT] But supporters point out [HAND GESTURE] that it is a "strong bill".
"This bill represents a strong compromise between Republicans and Democrats, giving our intelligence officials the tools they need to keep America safe and strengthen civil liberties protections," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"I don't recall specific concerns."
Most Democrats in Congress appear to concede that the compromise strikes the right balance [HAND GESTURE] between civil liberties and unchecked government surveillance.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the new bill "balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements." [...]
"I don't remember doing something with this information."
Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the bill "will prevent any repeat of warrantless surveillance undertaken by the president and will hold our government accountable for its actions, past and future, through strengthened court review and congressional oversight."
"I don't remember doing that."
In many ways the bill mirrors the warrantless wiretapping program that President Bush secrectly began using in 2001.
But supporters say it also creates a legal framework for spying activities that will include significant oversight from Congress and the federal courts. [...]
"I don't recall being aware of any particular memoranda."
To address the inevitable spying that will occur on Americans in these communications, the legislation includes a number of provisions lawmakers believe will safeguard the privacy and rights of U.S. citizens.
"I don't know that I was aware of those."
In what supporters described as "rare cases," in which "critical intelligence could be lost," eavesdropping could begin before a court has an opportunity to authorize it.
"I mean, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of decisions made every day. This was one."
In such cases, officials would have to submit their surveillance plan within a week and the court would rule within a month.
"I don't know precisely when, and I cannot discuss it further without getting into classified information."
What critics of the bill fail to acknowledge is that it provides a key role for each branch of Government.
It assigns responsibilities jointly to the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to ensure that the Nation's chief law enforcement and intelligence officials work together in collecting foreign intelligence in accordance with the law. It requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) to review and approve, or order modifications to, the procedures required by the Act and to ensure that those procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
"I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it."
And it requires that information about the implementation of these new procedures be reported to Congress, to ensure that Congress can fulfill its oversight role.
"I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before."
At least annually, the AG and DNI must submit to the FISA Court for review and approval targeting procedures for making that fundamental determination.
"I don't know when I became aware of that."
The Act provides for multiple levels of oversight both within the Executive Branch, including by Department of Justice and Intelligence Community Inspectors General, and in regular reporting to both the Congress and the FISA Court.
"My memory is not perfect."
[SHOULDER SHRUG, SMILE CAMERA LEFT]
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
What's in your glass?
To track rum to its source---back through the mojito craze, the Trader Vic interregnum, the Prohibition era, the grim slave epoch, the age of the pirates and the first European settlements of North America---is to run to ground the story of America. ...
Rum has always had a distinctly American swagger. It is untutored and proud of it, raffish, often unkempt, and a little bit out of control. The history of rum tends toward the ignoble, many times pleasingly so. "Rum's early history is one long rap sheet," wrote Hugh G. Foster in 1962. This is especially true when compared to snooty old gin and its dull marriage to the martini, or upstart vodka, for which equality is regularly confused with marketing. And whiskey is still fighting its tired, ancient battles---Scotch versus Irish, Canadian versus bourbon---like feudal lords grappling for control of empty moors. Rum is always willing to try something new and sort out the consequences later. As the bon vivant James Beard put it in 1956, "Of all the spirits in your home, rum is the most romantic."
Rum, in short, has been one of those rare objects in which America has invested its own image. Like moonglow, the life of America is reflected back in each incarnation of rum.
---From And a Bottle of Rum: A History of the New World in Ten Cocktails by Wayne Curtis
All I can say after watching our leaders in the House slash the Constitution to ribbons today is: make mine a double...and make my friend, Mr. Madison's, a triple.
Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]
From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
What's in your glass?
To track rum to its source---back through the mojito craze, the Trader Vic interregnum, the Prohibition era, the grim slave epoch, the age of the pirates and the first European settlements of North America---is to run to ground the story of America. ...
Rum has always had a distinctly American swagger. It is untutored and proud of it, raffish, often unkempt, and a little bit out of control. The history of rum tends toward the ignoble, many times pleasingly so. "Rum's early history is one long rap sheet," wrote Hugh G. Foster in 1962. This is especially true when compared to snooty old gin and its dull marriage to the martini, or upstart vodka, for which equality is regularly confused with marketing. And whiskey is still fighting its tired, ancient battles---Scotch versus Irish, Canadian versus bourbon---like feudal lords grappling for control of empty moors. Rum is always willing to try something new and sort out the consequences later. As the bon vivant James Beard put it in 1956, "Of all the spirits in your home, rum is the most romantic."
Rum, in short, has been one of those rare objects in which America has invested its own image. Like moonglow, the life of America is reflected back in each incarnation of rum.
---From And a Bottle of Rum: A History of the New World in Ten Cocktails by Wayne Curtis
All I can say after watching our leaders in the House slash the Constitution to ribbons today is: make mine a double...and make my friend, Mr. Madison's, a triple.
Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]