Day One

It's busy as hell.  I have to go to a goodbye party, and then it's off to the bars with some people.  After that, I get some sleep and it's going to be a hectic week in the mile-high city.  Luckily, my bus route isn't impacted by the convention, so I shouldn't have any trouble getting to work.

Helicopters have been circling around my neighborhood all last week, and they've been above my place non-stop since yesterday.  Some of the choppers are black, and I use that to get my liberatarian friends riled up (ooooh, big bad guvmint is here to start the new world order!  Black coppers!! lol!).

The police presence is ubiquitous.  They're moving around in groups ranging from three to up to six near the museums and capitol.  They have what appears to be zip ties, bright orange ones, wrapped around their belts/holsters.

There's a church across the street from me, and what looked like a city bus was escorted by some police cruisers.  It stopped at the church, and the police quickly shooed away some people holding signs.  I couldn't see who or how many got off the bus.  The signs that the people were holding that we shooed away were generic GOP and GWB campaing stickers.

The shady types that usually hang around Colfax are all gone.  Where they went, I couldn't say.

It's hot, and strangely muggy.

Anyways, I have a few hours to kill before I have to do anything.  Post your Denver thoughts here, or ask me more about what's going on outside.

This is meant to be a discussion thread.  I have a question I'd like to pose to you, the TPM reader:

What issue(s) must Obama stick with in order to secure your vote?

His FISA "refinement" really disappointed me.  Luckily, I've found a new outlet for my FISA-related energies.  Beyond FISA, however, I'd have to say he must, absolutely must, stick to his promises on 1.) the Iraqi war and 2.) universal health care to keep my vote.

FISA was a disappointment, but I have the feeling that we can win that in the courts (given, of course, sympathetic justices).  The war and health care, however, are not something that can be litigated from the outside.  They must be instigated from the top on down, and that requires initiative on the part of Obama.

Anyways, what do you think?

(Please don't construe this as a vote-for-McCain or concern trolling thread.  Honest answers will make for good discussion and will further flesh out what issues are most important for this election.)

(Also, Dude, "Muppet" is not the preferred nomenclature.  "Fuzzy sock puppet," please.)

I've noticed someting about individual Democrats that's hard to bring up, but I'm going to try to articulate that here in the hope that we can change that.

Democrats and liberals, as a people, seem to have a deep fear of success when it comes to issues (such as FISA and impeachment).

This fear is best reflected in posts like this one.  There's a certain "this-or-that" mentality to it.  According to this mentality, we can either win on issues, or win elections, but not both.  Furthermore, as the mentality goes, if we (as liberals and Democrats) press the issues that we think are important, then it's to the detriment of our election chances.  We should temper our convictions in order to win elections.  I would like to point out how absurd this notion is.

Firstly, winning elections stems from being able to win on the issues.  The Democratic party is resoundingly in step with the American people.  Take a look at any poll and you'll see that the voting public favors the Democrat's plan on the Iraqi war, health care, telecomm immunity, and a host of many more issues.

However, simply having the public's sympathy is only the half of it.  The Democrats still need to enact meaningful, institutional change based on these issues.  Sure, if the Democrats have the public's sympathy, it makes winning elections easier, but watch how quickly that sympathy disappears when nothing of consequence is done on these issues (see: FISA, Iraq war, etc).

Americans love a winner.  If we win on the issues, we win at the ballot box.  No amount of sternly-worded letters or soaring speeches can replace the satisfaction of enacting real change, and the voters will agree.

Secondly, pressing our the issues (like, say, FISA), doesn't hinder our chances of getting elected.  I hate to bring up the GOP, but they pressed every issue at all times in the last 16 years.  And, with a very few exceptions, they've been winning for the last 16 years.  The conservative arm of the GOP (the only arm left anymore) was relentless.  They wrote, spoke and appeared on every issue that was important to them.  Sometimes they weren't very successful (see: Clinton impeachment, Terri Schiavo affair), but you know what?  They never really felt an electoral backlash from any of these failures either.  The GOP is certainly in some dire straits now, but it's not from a lack of enthusiasm about the issues.

Whereas the GOP uses a full-court press when it comes to issues, some Democrats would rather we only win one issue or election at a time.  I think the last 16 years are enough evidence to prove that the former strategy is better than the latter.

Our capacity to win, both elections and in the legislature, is not a zero sum game.  Putting more effort in FISA, or any other issue, does not dimish our electoral efforts.  If anything, it strengthens them.  We can win on FISA, on health care and on almost all other issues, and at the same time win elections.  (It sounds so stupid to write that last paragraph, but I really think some people don't believe it.)

The American people are in our corner.  Our aspirations are theirs.  It's time we made the changes they want.

As an outspoken opponent of the current FISA bill, I would like to reiterate a few things that I have said in the past:

1.)  The current FISA bill does little to nothing to help the intelligence community.  The current FISA courts have been doing their job admirably for the last thirty or so years.  There is no need to overhaul the system.  If you need further proof, please see Mr. Greenwald.

2.)  The current FISA bill is not a compromise.  The needed checks and balances (which this "compromise" contains) for the FISA courts are already included in the original legislation.

3.)  The ability to take someone to court is a core priciple of democracy.  Demeaning that priciple undermines what makes this here old U.S. of A. the light of the world, and furthers the civic backslide that the GOP has been perpetuating for a generation.

4.)  Obama has nothing to gain by voting for the legislation.  Those that are familiar with the bill detest it, and those unfamiliar with the bill won't care if Obama votes "nay" on it.  The Republicans are going to paint Obama as "soft on terror" whether or not he votes for the FISA bill.  There is literally no purpose, politically, institutionally or militarily, to vote "yay" on the bill.

I regret I haven't been as active here as I should be.  This is a big issue, that strikes at the very core of what it means to be an American.

I am a supporter of Obama.  I am invested in his campaign.  However, for someone to govern well, we need to let him know what is important, and what he needs to change.  Obama has released a statement addressing people like me, but I simply cannot trade rights for public statements.  I will keep letting Obama know that this issue if important, and all other civically-minded voters should do the same.

Thank you for reading, and please take some time to let the Senators and Representatives that voted "nay" on the FISA bill know of your gratitude, in whatever way you can.

H.R.6304
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)


TITLE II--PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

SEC. 201. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new title:

`TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT

`SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

`In this title:

`(1) ASSISTANCE- The term `assistance' means the provision of, or the provision of access to, information (including communication contents, communications records, or other information relating to a customer or communication), facilities, or another form of assistance.

`(2) CIVIL ACTION- The term `civil action' includes a covered civil action.

`(3) CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES- The term `congressional intelligence committees' means--

`(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

`(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

`(4) CONTENTS- The term `contents' has the meaning given that term in section 101(n).

`(5) COVERED CIVIL ACTION- The term `covered civil action' means a civil action filed in a Federal or State court that--

`(A) alleges that an electronic communication service provider furnished assistance to an element of the intelligence community; and

`(B) seeks monetary or other relief from the electronic communication service provider related to the provision of such assistance.

`(6) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `electronic communication service provider' means--

`(A) a telecommunications carrier, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);

`(B) a provider of electronic communication service, as that term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code;

`(C) a provider of a remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code;

`(D) any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as such communications are transmitted or as such communications are stored;

`(E) a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D); or

`(F) an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).

`(7) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term `intelligence community' has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

`(8) PERSON- The term `person' means--

`(A) an electronic communication service provider; or

`(B) a landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance pursuant to--

`(i) an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

`(ii) a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code; or

`(iii) a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h).

`(9) STATE- The term `State' means any State, political subdivision of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United States, and includes any officer, public utility commission, or other body authorized to regulate an electronic communication service provider.

`SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

`(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, <b>a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--</b>

`(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

`(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

`(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

`(i) <b>authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007</b>; and

`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

`(b) Judicial Review-

`(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

`(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

`(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

`(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

`(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

`(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court's written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

`(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

`(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

`(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

`(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

`(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

`SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

`(a) In General- <b>No State shall have authority to--

`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community</b>;

`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

`(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(c) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

`SEC. 804. REPORTING.

`(a) Semiannual Report- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General shall, in a manner consistent with national security, the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution, fully inform the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives concerning the implementation of this title.

`(b) Content- Each report made under subsection (a) shall include--

`(1) any certifications made under section 802;

`(2) a description of the judicial review of the certifications made under section 802; and

`(3) any actions taken to enforce the provisions of section 803.'.

There's a lot of conversation right now about FISA, and I'm glad we're having it.

I believe Obama (and Hillary, and all worthwhile Senators) should oppose the FISA revisions.  A simple "nay" vote is all that has to be done, but more than that would be great.  A "yay" vote or not voting is unacceptable.

Just to be clear, I'm not threatening to vote for McCain, or stay home (at this time).  What I am saying is that we should all be getting in contact with our Senators and letting them know what we think, and that goes double for Obama.

The FISA bill is awful, is a travesty, and the fact that more people aren't outraged about it saddens me.

Now let me tell you why.

There are things that make America great.  Those things are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all of the amendments.  A little guy, wronged by a big guy, can have his day in court and have the outcome decided by other little guys.

These rights are, however, not gauranteed.  God does not make sure that they are enforced.  Men do.  Our rights require the constant vigilance from us to ensure that we, and future generations have them.  Something as simple as the right to take someone to court, something we so often take for granted in America, is so precious that we cannot allow anything, be it political expediency or fear or Presidential bargaining, take it from us.

Some have argued that allowing FISA through will make getting universal health care or Social Security reform easier.  And they're probably right, but the best health care in the world, or the most fair and giving Social Security system do nothing for us if we fail to protect our rights.  The right to privacy, on which legal abortion hinges, would you give that up for a shot at universal health care?  The right to free speech, something that allows us to sit here and pen blogs, would you give that up for Social Security?  Is it okay to give up the right to take someone to court, just for the chance at either of these things?

It is not okay.  This is not a small issue.  Bargaining away liberties does not amount to "incremental change."

We can have it both ways.  We can stop FISA and get through universal health care.  Universal health care and Social Security will require some bargaining, and there will be much back and forth when its time comes, but our rights are too big of a chip to throw down on the table, especially when the health care and Social Security issues are not explicitly on the table.

Others have suggested that President Obama will only enforce the parts of the FISA bill that are "good."  This is not much different than hoping that the next king will be a benevolent one.  Obama will one day leave office, and if he leaves FISA intact, we will all wish he had stopped it back in 2008, when the chance was there.

We need freedoms, and we need rights.  America will not be America without them.  So please, contact your Senator and Obama and let him know that you want to keep America the great country that it is.

Thank you for reading.

Now that the Democratic primarise are over and all worthwhile content on this site has disappeared, I'd like to make an open post.

Today's open post theme: YouTube videos

Cats on a treadmill

I think we're all the agreement; the news media is awful.  They report on trivial matters at the expense of real issues, a la the controversy mongering during the Obama-Clinton campaign.  Their editorial pages are biased.  They pay outright political hacks for "perspective."  Hell, even Kristol and Rove have landed center-stage gigs at FOX and the NY Times, respectively.  They're easily duped with bogus stories, and rarely do any fact checking.  See the pentagon-generals-as-independent-informants debacle and the Valerie Plame affair if you don't believe me.

Oh sure, each of us may have his or her favorite anchor or reporter or on-air bloviator, but on the whole we can all agree that there's something seriously wrong with the media.

I'm here to tell you whose fault this is.  It's mine.  Of course, not me personally.  I'm not stealing Chris Matthews' script or sabotaging the NY Times' Iraq war coverage or spamming the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.  Rather, it's the fault of people like me.

You see, I haven't had cable TV in six years.  I don't even watch network TV.  I haven't bought a newspaper, or a Time magazine or read any traditional print media in... well I can't remember how long.  I couldn't tell you what the AM news stations are in my city.  I haven't done any of these things, and there's a lot of people like me, and we are the reason your media is so bad.

Let me explain.  You see, the news media as we know it (hereafter, just "media") is incredibly over budget and, concurrently, losing readers/listeners/views (hereafter, "customers").  This has lead the media into a negative-feedback loop; the nature of the media turns away customers, and a loss of customers reinforces the nature of the media.

First, let's examine the nature of the media, and why we don't like it.  For brevity, I'll only focus on sensationalism, but the same argument that I present there can apply to many other negative aspects of the media.

Most of us hate sensational and trumped-up stories.  The brand of whiskey that Hillary drank in PA didn't have anything to do with the primary.  A missing girl in Aruba is not the primary concern of Americans.  These sorts of stories are even worse when they are reported on at the expense and real issues: health care, the Iraqi war, the economy and so on.  In fact, the only thing the various candidates's supporters could agree on during the primaries is that the media doesn't cover the issues enough, and with enough seriousness.

That's what the media gives its customers; sensational and superficial reporting.  Now, let's examine the customers' response to the above.  Your average customer may not decide one day to just disconnect the cable, or to cancel his newspaper subscription, but when times get though, those are the first things to go.  Hey, fifty bucks a month for internet can buy quite a few groveries, and you never really read the paper anyway.  The icing on the cake it that when the customer decides to get rid of some media source, he doesn't see it as all a bad thing.  After all, he never really liked the media to begin with.

So the media has lost a customer.  Let's take a look at their response to this.  

Like a whiney child that has been neglected, the media gets louder and more brash.  The Washington Post,  The Weekly Standard, network TV and many others have increased their sensationalism and manufactured controversy in the face of losing customers and, in some cases, millions of dollars.  Who can blame them though?  After all, it's conventional wisdom that these sorts of stories lure in customers.

There's also an economic aspect.  the media has been losing customers, and money, for quite some time.  Newspaper circulation has plummeted.  Network TV viewership is at an all-time low.  Even AM radio is feeling the heat.  It's much cheaper to manufacture a controversy than to research a real news story.  So that's what the media does.

Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is wrong.  People don't like the fake news.  Additionally, the media can't afford to do real research and reporting.  So we're back to square one; the media has lost a customer, the circumstances of that loss are exacerbated, and the media unwittingly prepares itself to lose another customer, and on and on.

So, on behalf of me and everyone like me, I'm sorry.  I'm sorry that your media is so bad, and I'm sorry that I'm not going to help it get any better.  There will be plenty of posts in the coming days, on TPM and elsewhere, about how awful the media is.  I can only offer you this; if the media gets so bad, and if you are gaining nothing from it, turn it off.  Unsubscribe.  Cancel the cable.  The media will get louder, more superficial and even worse, but it won't matter, because everyone that pays attention already knows that the media, as it is now, is a failure.

I'm just here to blog about an underappreciated band.  Probably best to let them speak for themselves:

<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ftJ8MBgzQs">Last Year's Nest</a>
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ymrWeiBBiSk">Rookie</a>
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ftJ8MBgzQs">After The Eulogy</a>
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmIUF03TNgs">Empire</a>

Anyways, happy listening.  If you have something similar, link it in comments.

Seeing as how everyone's at each others' throats over the Democratic primary right now, I thought it would be good to have a non-political blog.

So, use this blog's comment section to spam, test out your HTML, pimp your own website, or whathaveyou.