« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Netroots is A lot like Hollywood.
Hollywood is this wonderful place where it is always Sunny, it never rains, and Starlets roam the streets. The more you stay in Hollywood the more you believe EVERYWHERE is like Hollywood. That’s the problem. The rest of the United States is Middle America. The Hip, The Cool, The Hollywoodness is constrained to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Miami. Everywhere else is regular people doing regular shit. Hollywood is a relatively small community that truly believes everyone cares about the same things they care about. (Which is why every waiter or busboy has a script that they wrote tucked underneath their arm. There’s a great chance that script is about a waiter or a busboy who wants to be an actor and goes on an adventure)
That’s why when someone is pitching me an idea, I give it the Iowa test. “Will the folks in Iowa working at the ethanol refinery/auto plant/grocery store give a shit about this story?” Most times it’s a Hearty NOPE.
Examples:
Arrested Development – Great Show Well Written, Hilarious Bumbling Rich People. Watched by Iowa? NOPE.
30 Rock – Awesome show (I have friends that work on it) Well written smart, funny, Hip. About Rich People running a sketch show. Watched by Iowa? NOPE
The Jerry Springer Show – DREK (sidenote, I used to be an associate producer of the show) entertaining Drek (Jerry will tell you the same thing) Watched by Iowa? Bet your fucking cornstalk it is!
The vast majority of Hollywood is living their lives quietly and enjoying themselves and their vast fortunes. (Like Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts) But you don’t hear about those stories. E! True Hollywood stories are much more fun to watch than Celebrity Profiles. But what happens, the rest of the world i.e. Iowa thinks ALL of Hollywood is represented by the Paris Hilton sex tape or the Britney Spear drivathon. The MSM loves to headline the shows with starlets flashing their cooters, drunk driving, and baby dangling.
News outlet are no longer owned by maverick business owners who demanded profitability from their entertainment divisions and accurate substance from their New divisions. All the news outlets are by Corporations and have to adhere to the same standards of profitability that every division in the corporation is held to.
What does that mean?
Pop Quiz:
Over the Past 10 years has the rate of kidnapping increased or decreased?
There have been declines in kidnapping for almost the last 2 decades. What’s happened is somewhere along the way The MSM discovered Kidnappings are a ratings winner, which means, more advertising revenues. More importantly to the point that I’m making though, is that more people actually BELIEVE that kidnappings are on a rapid increase. Let’s state the obvious, Ladies and Gentlemen perception is reality.
Now how does this all relate to the Netroots?
As much as we don’t want to admit it we are a vocal community that can shape hip trends and start buzz but really and truly we make up a small minority of the population. Just like Hollywood all you hear about is hip trends and bad news! Look at the information from the TPM advertise page.
Who's Reading?
TPM Readers are affluent, highly educated and influential.
18% of readers make more than $150k per year;
60% make over $75,000 per year.
47% hold advanced degrees;
84% have a 4 year college degree.
This wouldn’t necessarily qualify as a nice clean swatch of what society as a whole looks like. This certainly ain’t Iowa. Let’s give FISA the Iowa test the way republicans surely will.
“The President wants to be able to monitor phone calls and emails that go to foreign countries. You know, where terrorist are. Barack Obama doesn’t want to let us do that.”
TPM/Progressives/Netroots.
“That’s a ridiculous statement. The FISA compromise steps on our rights and the constitution. No illegal search and seizure. We want telecom Immunity so we can find out punish the companies that illegally helped the president and so we can see how badly our rights have been eroded!”
IOWA (Read this like you’re from the Deep South, like Louisiana, it’s funnier that way)
“Well, I reccon the only people need’n to call a foreign country are Terr’sts and Mexicans. If that’ll keep them sum’bitches from blowin’ up my farm and keep our boys in I-RACK safe then that’s fine with. Who is that Barack Osama or Obomber trying to help out anyways. I heard he was a muslim.”
Okay, Okay, I went WAY to the extreme. But I think you get my point. What’s going on is this vocal minority which is the netroots is making a HUGE deal out of something that most of middle america won’t care about. But what will be reported by the MSM is:
“Obama is losing support with his base.”
“The Largest group on Obama’s website is against him.”
“Obama was forced to address concerns with his base as they’re organizing against him.”
“Obama is getting hammered by both sides.”
“Terrorist Fist Jab?”
What does this say to Joe Sixpack that comes home from a hard day at work, has a couple of beers, dinner with the wife in front of the tv, watches the news, and MAYBE goes to the internet to check sport scores, read and email forward from grandma, and look at a little internet porn before going to bed and waking up at five in the morning to do it all again?
“Well I knew it, if his own people don’t trust him why should I.”
Perception becomes Reality.
Remember, there is still a large chunk of our population that believes Sadaam had something to do with 9/11 and that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Mind you, I’m not talking about protecting Obama. I’m talking about protecting America from another 4 years of Republican Rule. I’m talking about protecting America from continued occupation in a hostile nation. I’m talking about protecting America from a healthplan that will have us paying taxes on the healthplans that our jobs provide for us (yeah, you don’t hear McCain talking about that little tax increase too often, do ya).
We do need to hold our politicians accountable for their actions. There are ways to do it that aren’t destructive to this campaign. Write a letter, Send an email, Join a group that is for supporting a better FISA bill instead of Rallying AGAINST the shitty one we have now. Mother Theresa once said “I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me.” If you don’t like the problem then help with the solution. The alternative to the FISA compromise, is continued warrantless spying as there has been under the Patriot Act. The alternative is McCain gets into office and guess what, do you think you’ll have FISA protection then or telecom accountability, NOPE!
Some of the progressives are like the Redsox fans before they won the World Series. You’re so used to losing and booing the home team that even when you’re in a position to win it’s not good enough. Losing has a badge of honor to it. My hometown Cub’s Fans are the same way.
Here comes the next thing. “You guys are too sensitive. We should criticize our leadership. This will help him in the longrun. You’re protecting your precious Obambi. People are smarter than that they’ll vote for the economy, and the war. Blah blah blah”
If I break Oscar De La Hoya’s Left hand OF COURSE over the next few months his Right hand will become stronger. And he’ll be better with his right hand. That doesn’t mean he’ll be able to win the fight in four months if his Left hand hasn’t healed.
Remember just over 36Million people voted in the Democratic primaries. Estimates are putting this election at 100 to 150 million people voting this year. JoeSixPack just started tuning in. He hasn’t watched Obama’s speech in 2004. He hasn’t seen the Will.i.am video on Youtube. He didn’t watch the “Yes We Can” speech from New Hampshire. All he’s seeing now is the criticism that he’s taking and from the MSM it’s coming from both sides, Democrats and Republicans. How many stories in the MSM talk about how Obama leading in the groups that Hillary said that he would have problems with. NONE. Why? There’s no ratings in good news folks. How many times have you heard it mentioned that one of the largest groups on Obama’s site is “Women for Obama” oh, you haven’t, well that because there's no ratings benifit.
Oh and yeah, I am a little sensitive about Obama’s chances, (here’s a flip flop for ya since I did say it isn’t about protecting Obama.). Myself and almost two million other people bought stock in a company called OBAMA for AMERICA. This wasn’t 3 bucks from a check box on the taxes, this was serious hard earned cash, that could have been gas money, books, a new lap top, iPhone. It’s Opportunity cost. Stockholders in Coca-Cola are still stung over Coke II. Do you think the people at ENRON would have liked the oppourtunity to take their investments else where? Unlike any other politician we’ve invested in this candidate with our time and hard earned money. So YEAH I want to protect my investment.
I invested in an opportunity for a better America. I invested in a hope for a President who will go after Osama bin Ladin. I’m investing in affordable health care. I’m investing in leadership that I may not always agree with, but leadership that I can trust is at least trying to do the right thing by the people instead by the corperate execs. I invested in a vision of respectability of our country around the globe. I invested in some Killer state of the Union addresses!
So yes, this blog is to protect my investment. Let’s pick our battles. I’ll gladly trade telecom immunity for affordable healthcare or an education system that can give a poor kid in the ghetto the same shot to go to College as a rich kid in suburbia.
Remember we’re just Hollywood the majority of the people on this site make more than 75K per year, this election, this candidate is for Iowa where the vast majority of the population wishes they could be so fortunate.
That’s the Change that I believe in.
Comments (63)
It's not telecom immunity only, it's the 4th Amendment.
July 6, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well as it currently stands the 4th amendment is out the window. The FISA compromise at least restores much of the authority to the FISA courts. Besides, what most people have been griping about is the telecom immunity. That's the part where Obama said he would "Support a Filabuster" to have it removed. If Dodd or Feingold decide to filabuster, and Barack backs them, then this whole argument will have been in vein.
July 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Court rulings have restored oversight to courts. Moreover, this bill limits the scope of oversight as to be meaningless. The idea that is "restores authority to the courts" trotted out by politicians is disingenuous and tells me they either have not read the bill or are outright lying.
The Courts did not lose authority - the Administration illegally tried to bypass them, but they had the authority.
Honestly, the arguments in favor of FISA coming from Washington are a pack of lies to persuade us that they aren't craven cowards willing to defend the Bill of Rights and feeding into the outright lie that this bill is necessary to defend us from terrorists. It is not.
July 6, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better listen to Oregon Activist, too, because he/she attends classified security briefings via his/her tinfoil hat.
July 7, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you willfully misrepresenting the scope, reach and effect of U.S. District Court opinions in a case to which the United States is not a party, or do you just not know what the hell you're talking about?
Sorry, but it really is an either/or proposition.
July 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about? What "courts"? Are you referring to the secret FISA court? It had no authority to respond to abuses. It was a secret court designed to issue secret warrants based upon evidence that would never be made available to the public or to the subject of the warrant. And under original FISA, a trial court could not review the evidence which gave rise to the warrant.
Which brings me to my next question, were you as outraged about the original FISA as you are about this? If not, why? Is it possible you are not aware that the original FISA also allowed wiretapping without first obtaining a warrant?
If you have been as outraged as you are now since 1978, please accept my apology. If you have directed this outrage with equal measure at Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as you have at Obama, please accept my apology. But if you haven't, I must tell you that new outrage is totally lame.
Oh, and what exactly are you doing, in your daily life, to protect the Fourth Amendment? Anything? How about this: Have you spent an equal amount of time bitching about Gordon Smith as you have about Obama (who is not even your Senator)? Have you written letters to Smith? Have you found out how Merkley would vote if he were in the Senate? Have you donated aggressively to Merkley? What have you done?
July 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
good post!
July 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome perspective on this, 'Quis. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there.
July 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done. I read this after writing my "Can Our Voices Be Heard" post, and I think they have something in common. You did a great job of putting this argument forth. Perhaps you'd have some good advice for me on my entry, because I'm at a loss as to how to drown out the MSM din. Recc'd
July 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, I am originally from Minnesota and have spent a lot of time in Iowa. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin have long progressive traditions that you insult with your characterization of them.
These are not conservative states or cultural backwaters. One of the finest contributions to American writing is the Iowa Writer's Workshop that has fostered and developed writers from Flannery O'Conner to Sandra Cisneros with faculty from Cheever to Roth.
A very rude payback for Iowa's kicking off the Obama momentum. I suggest when you decide to insult a region or a state you at least know one damn thing about it.
You know one reason the Republicans can exploit working class people by stoking their distrust for elitism is the prevalence of condescending bullshit about Joe Sixpack et. al. I guarantee you that if Joe Sixpack read your post and 6 posts from progressives complaining about FISA, the one that would influence him against Obama would be yours.
July 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true. The truth hurts. If you call a smart person stupid they'll laugh at you. You call a stupid person stupid and they're ready to kick your butt.
Having originally been from Chicago, spent time in Iowa (a good friend of mine is from Ames, a very progressive portion of the state) spent considerable amounts of time in Mississippi, and Georgia. And having worked as a producer on a talk show that constantly gets most of it's guests from (Florida, Texas, Virgina, West Virgina, Tennessee, and Kentucky) I think I have had a bit of a sampling of what the heartland is.
And the truth is If I were a rich liberal progressives, I'd hang around rich liberal progressive and we'd wax poetically about the wrongs of society and how to fix them. I'd claim that everyone around me does the same and we'd go with our perception that that's the way the world was.
I tend to hang around with JoeSixPack. I go to dive bars and shit kickers cause them's my peoples. Yeah, what I said would offend the great majority of them, the ones this isn't applicable to would laugh this off. Just like I know when I read horrible stereotypes about Black people, I know most of them don't apply to me so I laugh them off (yes, I'm Black). But I do know a huge section where those stereotypes are dead on.
Like i said, the redneck example was the EXTREME case. You know what the vast majority of Middle America Watches Tim the Toolman Taylor Reruns and Wheel of fortune.
July 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was laughing out loud as I was reading that. Great post! Rec'd.
July 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We do need to hold our politicians accountable for their actions. There are ways to do it that aren’t destructive to this campaign. Write a letter, Send an email, Join a group that is for supporting a better FISA bill instead of Rallying AGAINST the shitty one we have now. "
That's exactly what people are already doing.
However, just passing a lousy FISA bill thinking that it somehow 'immunizes' our candidate is totally ridiculous and naive.
Marquis, it's really simple. Don't pass this current FISA bill. At least strip out that telecom immunity. Obama should do everything he can to do that, and filibuster if needed as he promised. That for me would be a change I could believe in. It won't cost Obama anything - in fact, it will earn him respect and make his path to the White House even smoother. The idea that we need to 'trade' a bad FISA bill for having Obama in the White House is the type of 2002 mentality that resulting in the Dems getting their asses kicked.
I'd like to think we learned something from that episode.
July 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long have you lived in this country? Have you ever, once, seen Americans react rationally to fear? This could seriously damage his candidacy if played wrong. Meaningless stands on shit like this means he loses the presidency.
Can we try to get a little perspective and perhaps hold him accountable for the ONE thing he can do as junior senator from Illinois - which is cast a single vote based on his own estimation of the threat, the Constitutional considerations and his conscience?
Perhaps, just this once, we actually allow someone to have an opinion that is different that ours and not roast them over a pit of coals for not being a million things to a million people?
July 7, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! I think the important thing is to not continue with the McCain mantra that Obama has veered towards the center. He hasn't. I don't like the FISA comment and have complained, but I still support his candidacy 100% and will continue to work for him.
You make a GREAT point about the positive news that doesn't get heard. His popularity amongst women, etc., we don't hear that but hear about the marginal PUMA types. So we should take it upon ourselves to publicize the good news. Get it out there, try to compensate for the MSM's pro-McCain bias.
We also need to continually remind folks about McCain's weaknesses. Like this great post listing his staggering number of flip-flops:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mccians-recordsetting-flipflop.php and this list of other McCain flubs:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mccains-laundry.php
July 6, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is McCain's stance on the whole FISA issue?
July 6, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The netroots is bitching almost exclusively about Obama, as though he is in a position to stop this. And where does McCain stand? He supports the PAA!! He supports full telecom immunity, both civil and criminal, now and in the future. He has the same opinion about executive power as Bush. But let's not talk about that. Let's just keep bitching about our own candidate, doing all we can to punish him for not being perfect, to include keeping him out of the White House.
That way, we can be righteous victims for another 8 years. We can be martyrs, which is all we apparently really want.
July 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've missed the point:
It is the beltway that is very isolated. When our elected officials return to their districts, do you think they really see what's going on with the pre-defined showcases?
July 6, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've insulted everyone but your precious netroots, assuming they are all dimwits who only use the internet to check scores and porn...come on, they have sportscenter and Penthouse for that, buddy.
I just think overall you are seriously overestimating the impact of the "netroots" and "progressives" and underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
It honestly doesn't surprise me that you are so out of touch with normal people, given the history you have recounted, but your obnoxious stereotypes are way overboard. I realize you called your little skit "extreme", but it was the only one you gave, so what am I to think of your real opinion of Americans outside Hollywood, New York, Miami , SF, etc.?
If I was someone not in the blessed "TPM demographic", I would definitely want to kick your ass right now.
Not recommended. Short sighted, patronizing, condescending.
July 6, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps comprehension isn't your strong suit.
This ENTIRE blog was lambasting the netroots for being short-sighted and self-centered. It was telling them yo quit pillorying Obama for every move he has to make in this campaign if they actually want him to win.
He was pointing out the fact that although we don't represent a majority of the country that the corporate media will use our disaffection to paint Obama's campaign as circling the drain. Whatever it takes to keep the horse race meme going.
The "netroots" shows itself to be more and more mundane each day.
July 7, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire you, JEM. I thought about replying but figured it would be a useless exercise. Dorn missed the point of this post entirely.
July 7, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
==I tend to hang around with JoeSixPack. I go to dive bars and shit kickers cause them's my peoples. Yeah, what I said would offend the great majority of them, the ones this isn't applicable to would laugh this off. Just like I know when I read horrible stereotypes about Black people, I know most of them don't apply to me so I laugh them off (yes, I'm Black). But I do know a huge section where those stereotypes are dead on.==
This doesn't sound right. Anyone who uses words like JoeSixPack on a political blog doesn't really "hangs around" with Joe "Six Pack". In reality, Joe "Six Pack" doesn't really hang out with you - you are a pretty boring guy to old Joe. I can see you tell a rapt audience at "Big Muddy's" in Burlington 'bout all the responses your post generated at the TPM - couldn't do that anyway, because they are flooded out.
==I invested in an opportunity for a better America. I invested in a hope for a President who will go after Osama bin Ladin. I’m investing in affordable health care. I’m investing in leadership that I may not always agree with, but leadership that I can trust is at least trying to do the right thing by the people instead by the corperate execs. I invested in a vision of respectability of our country around the globe. I invested in some Killer state of the Union addresses!
So yes, this blog is to protect my investment. Let’s pick our battles. I’ll gladly trade telecom immunity for affordable healthcare or an education system that can give a poor kid in the ghetto the same shot to go to College as a rich kid in suburbia.==
Well, I would have to say that you may have made a bad investment and you will have to take responsibility for your judgement, like any other investor. In addition, if you could trade your own freedom for things you mention (you can't actually do that successfully, but you probably can't understand that yet), you are welcome to try. The problem is that you want to trade off the freedom from all of us in the process, and, no, you are not at liberty to do that.
I don't want affordable healthcare at a price of constant government surveilance and college education should not be made equitable as a trading price for freedom of thought. You probably don't see yet that these things are deeply connected and the Bill of Rights is not a bunch of unwanted items to be traded up on. What kind of education would one get, if the entire communications system is under constate surveilance?
July 6, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your lack of understanding for both this blog as well as the status of civil liberties in this country is amazing to behold.
July 7, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody understands FISA as it was originally or rewritten.
Dude one more motherfucking time: FISA empowers the executive to conduct warrantless searches. That's the purpose of the statute. Always was. The problem was that Bush ignored the statue and punishing some companies does nothing about a president who refuses to follow the law. That's what happened - it wasn't the wiretaps - you idiots - those are authorized by the statute. The problem was Bush ignored the statutory requirement to report back to the FISA court after the fact.
Goddamn it - 3/4s of the people bitching about Obama's position do not understand this issue at all. Neither the original statute nor the amended one changes the basic situation - the president is empowered by FISA to conduct warrantless searches - our "protection" such as it is and was, is the secret FISA court - and that's the way it is going to be. Doesn't matter what Obama does.
You never read the statute, did you?
This is beyond ridiculous -
July 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the more you try to explain it to them, the madder they get. This really is the left's equivilent of a flag pin.
July 7, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might be hilarious if it weren't so maddening.
July 7, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
You echo the sentiments I have been expressing with the same frustration. What is with all this new outrage over FISA? These fuckers, including Greenwald, not only act like the original FISA was no big deal, but have even engaged in a defense of it! You've got to be kidding me. Oregon Activist is the latest to chime in with this ridiculous hyperbole. This bill does nothing to the Fourth Amendment that wasn't done decades ago. Jesus Christ, is this hard?
July 7, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in Louisiana. Here's how to make it sound more authentic, should you decide to make fun of hicks of the Louisianian variety again:
"Who dey gonna listen at, cher? Maybe we got us some terriss over here tryna ring up dey fammlee over dere in de Ay-rab country or somewheres. Mais dem Mexicans call home to talk to dey fammlees too, but dey won't mine if the guvment listen at em a lil bit. Mais we gotta keep dem terriss from explodin our houses and we gotta keep t-boy safe over in de Eyerack, yeah."
--------------------
I get the point of your post, but I just want to make sure you (and others reading this) understand the danger of making caricatures of people from Iowa or Louisiana or the Deep South. I realize when we're talking about politics we tend to categorize people and make generalized statements about them. I just want to remind people that we're not all just alike out here in yokel land.
---------------------
So you worked on the Jerry Springer Show??? Tell the truth--some of that stuff was staged, right? You must have some awesome stories to tell at parties.
July 7, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah,
I have a bunch of AWESOME STORIES from that time in my life. If you're ever in SoCal we can have a beer and I'll share.
And I rolled on the floor laughing from your Louisiana reinterpretation. You're so Dead On. That's how my uncle that has a house farm in Louisiana talks. He barbeques with his bare hands.
I should change that from Louisiana to More Mississippi.
July 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
==I grew up in Louisiana. Here's how to make it sound more authentic, should you decide to make fun of hicks of the Louisianian variety again:==
==I get the point of your post, but I just want to make sure you (and others reading this) understand the danger of making caricatures of people from Iowa or Louisiana or the Deep South.==
Hello, laurajordan?
Dem hicks pretty funny, huh?
The kicker is that Obama is trying to get their vote!
July 7, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am a hick. That was kinda the point of my comment.
Hell yeah, he's going after their votes. He'll get a lot of 'em too.
He has mine.
July 7, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read this like I was a typical 30-year-old black hustler whose life is dedicated to self-promotion and who is under the delusion he has a future in show business. It was a little funnier, but not actually funny-funny.
July 7, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice racism there, DICK.
July 7, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I GET IT. It's in his pseude -- Dick Wadsack.
Very clever. *yawn*
July 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Work on your vocabulary, dipstick. It might help you to know the meaning of the words you toss around even if your general reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
July 7, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you're a fucking douche bag. "Typical black?" What the fuck are you doing at TPM? Go back to Politico, find some like minded folks.
July 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does your Mother now how you talk?
July 7, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hunh. I'm guessing her answer will depend on what you mean by now. I had no idea that word could function as a verb. What's the definition, Zippy?
July 8, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, sweetie. That was a typo.
By the way, I haven't addressed any of the multiple personalities you either attempt to assume or which have taken possession of you. My 'vocabulary' remark was for Mr. Miller. The way this format works is, if I had responded to your post my comment would have appeared indented under yours and not indented under his.
July 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're on a blog thread, Mr. Wadsack. We're not sending private messages to each other through the U.S. Postal Service. That makes you vulnerable to return snark fire from anyone!
You left yourself wide open. I couldn't resist, Dick.
July 8, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, darlin'. Or whichever one of you that was.
July 8, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Well, I am a hick. That was kinda the point of my comment.==
Really? Is this a common hick past-time - to blog on liberal political websites?
It is common, however, for well-educated folk to pretend to be low-brow in America, a country with a strong anti-intellectual tradition.
July 7, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're proving my point. You assume that hicks can't be on this site and blog. See! Who's the elitist now?
July 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This "dimitry" person is about as perceptive as a tree stump.
Or, to use a Deep South characterization, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "the boy's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice!"
Or, "You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball! Eye. Ball. Eyeball! I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is."
;-)
July 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to try to clarify for those of you seem to think that the Bill of Rights is written in stone and you have all these rights out there that no one can fuck with - y'all are naive beyond belief.
Let me explain something about the 4th amendment. You read it with the 14th - Due Process - you don't interpret the constitution in pieces - it works together.
Due process has already been reduced by the SCOTUS to a subjective standard, in some cases - authorities now can get evidence in that they gathered without warrants even if there is no exigent circumstance, because the SCOTUS carved out a "good faith" exception to the 4th and 14th years ago. If an authority believes it was acting in good faith - the SCOTUS has held that's enough to remove the taint from the evidence.
What I'm telling you is that there are warrantless searches conducted in this country every 5 minutes. You get stopped and searched - that's a search incident to arrest, no warrant required, too bad for you.
That's just one for instance.
FISA is a national security statute enacted long before 9-11, and used by other presidents to conduct warrantless searches. Other presidents followed the law and went back to the FISA court and got their actions authorized with after-the-fact warrants. Bush quit going to the FISA judges after they told him twice they weren't going to sign off on some of his activities. But the fact that Bush didn't follow the statutory mandates does not mean that if he had, there would not have been any warrantless wiretaps. That was up to the FISA judges. And we don't know what they would have done cause he didn't give them the opportunity - he ignored the whole thing after he was refused twice.
Bush broke the law - because he failed to conform to FISA. But nothing that Obama does with this revised version is going to change the basic purpose of the statute - which is a legislative mandate to the executive to conduct warrantless searches.
July 7, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Although, being from Minnesota, I think you're WAY wrong about Iowans talking with a southern accent. I've been down there, and they still speak like midwesterners. Here's a more likely comment:
IOWA
"Well, I s'pose if a guy was callin' foreign countries alot, he might wanna think about why that's so important to him. And someone might wanna keep an eye on who that feller's callin', if you know what I mean. I'm not sayin' he's a terrorist for sure or anything, but I don't know a lot of people who need to call their brother in Saudi Arabia on the weekend, if you know what I'm sayin'."
For instant translations of several popular dialects, see here:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/
July 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh absoulutely. Iowans are midwesterner... I just thought it sounds funnier read as a southerner.
July 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think the whole thread reads funnier in Redneck:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=redneck&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2F2008%2F07%2Fthe-netroots-is-a-lot-like-hol.php&inside=1
July 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Varmintally, ah reckon th' whole thread reads funnier in Redneck:
I like it!!
July 8, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Opps--here's a better link:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=redneck&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Ftalk%2F2008%2F07%2Fthe-netroots-is-a-lot-like-hol.php
Apparently you're not allowed to remove the frame from the page...
July 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, never mind. You're not allowed to see the linked page until you've acknowledged the disclaimer. Both links work.
July 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in Elmer Fudd....
Awwight, nevew mind. You'we not awwowed to see the winked page untiw you've acknowwedged the discwaimew. Bof winks wowk.
Take DAT, you wascawee wabbit.
July 8, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
==FISA is a national security statute enacted long before 9-11, and used by other presidents to conduct warrantless searches. Other presidents followed the law and went back to the FISA court and got their actions authorized with after-the-fact warrants. Bush quit going to the FISA judges after they told him twice they weren't going to sign off on some of his activities. But the fact that Bush didn't follow the statutory mandates does not mean that if he had, there would not have been any warrantless wiretaps. That was up to the FISA judges. And we don't know what they would have done cause he didn't give them the opportunity - he ignored the whole thing after he was refused twice.
Bush broke the law - because he failed to conform to FISA. But nothing that Obama does with this revised version is going to change the basic purpose of the statute - which is a legislative mandate to the executive to conduct warrantless searches.==
You have said this before, and I did not understand the thrust of your argument then either. It is true that old FISA allows for spying to start without a warrant, but for express reasons stated - if you don't you will loose a valuable information that is important to an investigation. But FISA requires the government to go to court within a very short time to get a warrant or stop the spying. That's not "warrantless surveilance", as you keep calling it - it is "delayed warranted surveilance". They are really not one and the same. In fact they are quite different - in one case the government has a loop hole that it requried to close in 72 hours by showing good reason. In another, the government has an open invitation to surveil large swaths of informational space all the time, with no reason, no warrant, no probable cause of any kind, NO DUE PROCESS, subjective, objective or otherwise - a classic, but unbelievably large-scale continuous fishing expedition, the kind that up to now have been routinely denied by courts.
I think you have an exceedingly weak legal argument in trying to equiate old FISA and new proposed FISA as "similar" or "alike". They are not. You appear to be using this weak argument with an express purpose of shielding your chosen candidate against well deserved criticims for taking an anti-liberty, anti-Constitution and anti-privacy position. The law he is backing is highly likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court, as it has struck down several other attempts at executive over-reach. A Democratic candidate for President should not be backing another shameless attempt to take down critically important rights of citizens.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. Drop the Obama personality cult.
July 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
==Nobody understands FISA as it was originally or rewritten.
Dude one more motherfucking time:==
Your flawed and exceedingly weak legal argument is only further exposed by silly outbursts with studied attempts at tough language.
An delayed exception of the old law is certainly not the same as continuous application of this exception in perpetuity in the new law.
It is quite wrong to try to equate them. For example, a cop who is allowed to conduct a search of your trunk at a traffic stop because you seem nervous is really not the same thing as allowing cops to conduct wide ranging neighborhoos search raides at anytime of day or night, breaking into everyone's houses with no probably cause or any suspicion or any due process whatsoever, just hoping to get something. There is a legal and a logical term that I am sure exists for the falacy of equating the two, which being but a simple engineer escapes me, but I do remember "quantity becoming quality" (Hegel?), which certainly would apply as well.
July 7, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dmitry: Stick to engineering. This FISA bill also requires the government to go to the FISA court after the fact. And Tena is correct: The original FISA was written with the express intent of circumventing the Fourth Amendment. If not, there would have been no point in enacting it. The government would have simply relied on existing precedent to guide their actions.
Also, as a criminal defense attorney I can tell you that your examples are ridiculous. Police cannot search the trunk of your car because you look suspicious. There is a bit more to the automobile exception than that. But yes, the Fourth Amendment was a piss poor written Amendment that should have been more expansive and more clear. For starters, it should have said searches must be preceded by a warrant (which it doesn't, despite common myth to the contrary). If you want to see how it should have been written, check out Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
And as for your silly house raid diatribe, you must have this bill confused with PAA.
But again, stick to engineering. You are embarassing yourself.
July 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
=="Well, I s'pose if a guy was callin' foreign countries alot, he might wanna think about why that's so important to him. And someone might wanna keep an eye on who that feller's callin', if you know what I mean. I'm not sayin' he's a terrorist for sure or anything, but I don't know a lot of people who need to call their brother in Saudi Arabia on the weekend, if you know what I'm sayin'."==
I am pretty certain that the majority of the country already is against the proposed FISA provisions under discussion. I am even more certain, that if these provisions, as they are being applied (and are proposed to be legalized) would be aired out in full public view, these majorities would be sky-high.
I continue to be stunned by the unfolding tragi-comedy of Democrats falling all over themselves to facilitate lawless spying on Americans in a fit of stupidly mistaken miscalculation of craven political advantage.
I mean, if you want to be politically craven, fine, be that way (try not to drag eveyone else with you), but be smart about it!
Why are lining up to give up our rights, for no reason whatsover, not even a political one?
July 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So yes, this blog is to protect my investment. Let’s pick our battles. I’ll gladly trade telecom immunity for affordable healthcare or an education system that can give a poor kid in the ghetto the same shot to go to College as a rich kid in suburbia. "
And when they've silenced all political dissent by spying on everyone that they feel like, where will there be anybody to stand up to require things of our government? You obviously haven't read enough of the new bill to understand its effects, do some reading.
And if an effective repeal of the 4th Amendment doesn't bother you, WHAT WOULD?
July 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
18% of readers make more than $150k per year;
60% make over $75,000 per year.
47% hold advanced degrees;
84% have a 4 year college degree.
None of these things are me. Obama's switch on this issue is troubling. By his own statements, I find this deeply troubling. He called standing up for the rule of law as a core value, as it relates to immunity, and lines need to drawn. He backed down from that. How can I believe he won't betray other "core values".
July 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won't break with the first dent.
And he won't care about our votes if he thinks he has 'em sewed up. Needs a little reminding who got him where he is.
July 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Dmitry: Stick to engineering.==
Plan to.
==This FISA bill also requires the government to go to the FISA court after the fact.==
My understanding is this FISA bill doesn't require the government to go after the fact for a warrant at all. The entire warantless program is submitted to the FISA court for approval of methods. There are no more individual, probable cause warrants, just a general, methodological approval of the entire warantless approach.
==And Tena is correct: The original FISA was written with the express intent of circumventing the Fourth Amendment. If not, there would have been no point in enacting it. The government would have simply relied on existing precedent to guide their actions. ==
The original FISA was passed in order to prevent continued, lawless spying on Americans by the executive branch by Nixon administration and before. I don't see how the current FISA circumvents the 4th Amendment - it still requires warrants, government still has to show probably cause, there is due process. One of the important differences is the secrecy under which the FISA court operates, but that may be understandable for certain kinds of national security related investigations.
==Also, as a criminal defense attorney I can tell you that your examples are ridiculous. Police cannot search the trunk of your car because you look suspicious.==
My examples are ridiculous on purpose, as absurdum, so to speak. And wasn't there a recent Supreme Court case where the right of the car trunk search was adjudicated in favor of the police? As a criminal lawyer, I am sure you can tell me.
==There is a bit more to the automobile exception than that. But yes, the Fourth Amendment was a piss poor written Amendment that should have been more expansive and more clear.==
That's no reason to ignore it, is it?
==For starters, it should have said searches must be preceded by a warrant (which it doesn't, despite common myth to the contrary). If you want to see how it should have been written, check out Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.==
I think hindsight is 20/20, and Washington State Constitution may have been written a bit later. And it is a bit of a stretch to understand that the common position of the 4th Amendment on warrants is to have them AFTER the fact, lets consult the language of the amendment itself:
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In particular, note use of the words "to be", in connection of warrants that "shall issue". A standard interpretation of the English tenses clearly means that the warrants shall issue before the search is conducted.
In addition, SCOTUS has ruled that the reasonableness clause may be violated EVEN with a properly obtained warrant.
==And as for your silly house raid diatribe, you must have this bill confused with PAA.==
Ad absurdum, my legal eagle, ad absurdum.
==But again, stick to engineering. You are embarassing yourself.==
Quite the contrary. I find that many lawyers, like doctors, have an inflated opinion of their own intellectual abilities that is quite at variance with observed fact. For example, your response to my admittedly simply articulated position has not advanced the argument much at all, included much imprecision, much boasting and some completely unnecessary personal attacks.
Please try again, this time with some thought.
July 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you are wrong on every front. But with regard to the inflated sense of self worth, it is worth noting that you are the one who veered into territory which you know jack shit about. You don't see me trying to spew on engineering (yawn!).
And that is also the reason why rule number one in trial is remove every engineer from the jury panel. First thing you learn in TrialAd.
July 7, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is well worth reading on the subject:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/05/monarchy/index.html
While Greenwald is now considred in the democratic faction that is clearly "disloyal" to the leader, his facts are straight, his writing clear and demonstrates the undeniable corruption of the leaders of the Democratic party quite well.
Don't dismiss his writing out of misplaced "loyalty" to the leader!
July 7, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
==As usual, you are wrong on every front. But with regard to the inflated sense of self worth, it is worth noting that you are the one who veered into territory which you know jack shit about. You don't see me trying to spew on engineering (yawn!). ==
That's a bummer of a closing argument, legal eagle. A poster on a political blog had dared to have an opinion on LEGAL MATTERS, oh my! I can't listen anymore to this SACRILEGE! He doesn't even have a LAW DEGREE!
However, I invite you to "spew" anyting at all of any worth on engineering, science, mathematics. The truth is you can't - your math and science grades throughout your educational career were lackluster at best and more likely plain poor. And I don't have to tell you that my grades in all subjects were uniformly excellent, even though English is not my first language.
==And that is also the reason why rule number one in trial is remove every engineer from the jury panel. First thing you learn in TrialAd. ==
I guess the lawyer that chosen me to sit on a complicated real estate swindle case years ago did not go to the same "TrialAd" class. Why do you think they teach you to remove engineers? Too difficult to bamboozle with fake high falutin' words? Or is that the fact that "If they dont' fit you can't convint" will not work on us?
July 7, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment