As I'm watching Countdown, we get the story of "our friend" John McCain in Pittsburgh answering the question, "What do you think of when you hear "Pittsburgh?" McCain's answer: the Pittsburgh Steelers. McCain goes on to tell his interviewer an anecdote of giving the name of the famed Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line to his captors as he was being tortured to get some relief.

Is there a problem with that? Just a tiny one.
 
McCain had written about this incident in his book (page 194) and described reciting the names of the Green Bay Packers football team... Coach Vince Lombardi, Bart Starr and company. It was re-enacted in a made for television movie, using the Packers and not the Steelers.

Another problem? The famed Steelers (Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Lynn Swann, Franco Harris and teammates both offensive and defensive) to which McCain referred did not become "famed" until after McCain had been repatriated.

Oops...

Isn't it just a little, um, odd that John McCain like a former Democratic candidate (who shall go nameless but who had passed the all-important commander-in-chief threshhold and who like McCain had a "lifetime of experience") in the same campaign season, would be felled with the same "misremembering" contagion just months apart? You'd think the campaign might have gotten vaccinated against this sort of thing.

At least he didn't claim it was the 9-time Super Bowl Champs, the Tuzla Torpedos.

Dear Jesse:

I hear you have an "issue" with Senator Barack Obama. I hear you think he's "talking down" to black people. I hear you plan to "cut his nuts off."

Do that and somebody may bust a cap in yo' azz.

I know you're just a tad jealous of Barack. Here is this tall, good-looking, smooth-talking, articulate, Harvard educated black guy, from your hometown, but not one of your "homeboys." To go all biblical on you, here's this Joshua generation guy picking up the staff and moving out smartly, heading towards the promised land, leading the flock. 

Jesse, here's the deal: Barack hasn't said anything with regard to the role and responsibility of the black family that hasn't been said before. From W. E. B. DuBois to Bill Cosby and Tavis Smiley to Barack. He hasn't said anything that hasn't been said by the best and brightest of black intelligentsia or academia or in the pulpit or the judge's chambers. It's been said by teachers and doctors and policemen. It's been said in the barbershop and the beauty parlor. 

Even your son Jesse Jr. had to take you down a peg or three.

But thank you. Your comments on FOX News with Bill O'Reilly (nonetheless) were very helpful. You let everybody know Barack is his own man and not a puppet of Jesse Jackson.

Thanks, man!

The FISA vote happened today, and Barack Obama voted with the majority on the overall bill, voted for amendments (which failed) to remove the retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that were pressured by the Bush administration to comply with its illegal wiretapping of US citizens.

If I were in lockstep with the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party, I should be firebreathing mad at Barack Obama for his vote. But I am not. I have faith that, in an Obama presidency, we will not have a president who will shred the Constitution for his own purposes.

Back in 1978, when FISA was first passed, we were still fighting the commies in the Cold War, there were agents in our own intelligence services who were trading secrets with our enemies and compromising our national security. Let me repeat that: there were Americans employed by our own intelligence services who were giving away national security secrets to our enemies (like the Soviets) and to foreign intelligence services (like the Israelis) to assist those agencies with carrying out activities which could be harmful to the United States.

But before FISA, we should also remember, President Richard Nixon had undermined the Constitution by using federal resources like the FBI to spy on US citizens -- from movie stars and sports figures to politicians and pundits -- to build his infamous "enemies" list. It was those revelations, stemming from Watergate, that led Congress to impose structure and accountability. With FISA, you had to have warrant to wiretap. If the government wanted find out who you were talking to, they had to hightail it to court and get a warrant. They had essentially 72 hours  to get one after wiretapping began, if they lollygagged and failed to get permission beforehand.

Under its original structure, the FISA law seemed to work. The number of wiretaps was low, agencies complied the requirement to go to court and make their case before a FISA judge to get their warrants.

Then came September 11, 2001. And this is one instance were there truly is a world of difference before and after. On October 26, 2001 -- barely a month after 9/11, the USA Patriot Act was passed. It amended FISA and broadly expanded what law enforcement could do under the umbrella of halting "terrorism."

In any case, it is the government which brings the request for a wiretap or other surveillance or search to bear. It is the President, through the Attorney General (without a court order) or government through another agency (like the National Security Administration, or Homeland Security or Federal Bureau of Investigation)(with a court order) who determine who, what, where, when, why and how someone is to be subject to a FISA surveillance.

Criminal and civil liability exists for agents or agencies which violate FISA.

But the catch is:

1) The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;[10] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3)[11] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[12]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,[13] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[14]

2) Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance."

3) Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."[18]

[NOTE: The "war powers" provision of FISA was repealed today, and other aspects of the law were strengthened:

Requires FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

Prohibits targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.

Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future. ]

If the Attorney General orders wiretaps or surveillance without a court order -- as is legal for the AG to do -- how does an "agent" like a telcom know that the surveillance or information they are "requested" to turn over is "unauthorized?" If the President, his AG and intelligence agencies threaten legal action any non-compliant telcom for other alleged violations of law -- ranging from IRS, SEC, FTC, FCC charges to even "aiding and abetting terrorists" -- it kind of puts the telcom -- or any other business from whom information is demanded -- in a difficult spot.

The telcoms would be obliged legally to abide by legitimate requests from the government for information. And being realistic and pragmatic about the whole thing, the NSA has had the ability to spy on you and me all along.

I know that there are demands to take this issue to court so that "we can learn what happened" and why the telecoms (save for one or two) gave in to the administration. I think there are other means to do this outside of the judicial system. The Congress has subpoena power, and perjury before Congress is punishable by law.

But I think the first answer to what happened that brought us to this point in history is October 26, 2001. The USA Patriot Act. When far too many people -- in and out of government -- were scared sh*tless by what had happened on 9/11 and supported a piece of legislation that gave away civil rights by the bushel basket. That was the real "assault on the Constitution." That was the real "shredding of the Fourth Amendment." And we turned a blind eye to a President who uses signing statements to skirt laws he doesn't like. We've had just about eight years of it. And for just about eight years, we've had a Congress in partisan gridlock. That is what you should be mad about. 

Finally, I also know this: laws once made can be repealed. I trust Barack Obama, as the 44th President, to be more prudent and judicious in using his powers, and to be protective of a Constitution that has been mauled by the 43rd President and his minions.

[NOTE: Cites from Wikipedia]

On the front page of today's TPM is Josh Marshall:

I guess I love a good slavery joke as much as the next guy. So here's a terribly witty Jonah Goldberg column in which he belittles slavery and debt peonage by comparing them to requiring college students to do a few hours of community service in exchange for taxpayer-subsidized student loans or getting kids to volunteer for Americorps.

Okaa--aaaaa-aaaaaa-ay....

Call me "over-sensitive" and tell me that I need to go out and buy a sense of humor, but slavery has never been something I find funny. Maybe not being one of the "regular, working, hardworking Americans" -- you know, those blue-collar, regular people who understand these things makes me "arrogant, elitist, and out of touch" with the Applebee's salad bar crowd.

Now, granted, I may be just a little too close to the subject at hand, having had some not too distant relatives who enjoyed the "benefits" of slavery. You know, traveling to an exotic distant land, chained head to foot in the lower decks of a ship, packed in tightly (apparently for our safety, the Middle Passage version of "seat belts"). Greeted with the exciting prospect of toiling for hours in the hot sun on an actual working plantation (the 18th and 19th century version of a "dude ranch vacation.") The cuisine is not four-star, Michelin rated, but one can make do. You have to make your own entertainment. Be wary of the over-zealous "fitness directors" who follow a more literal interpretation of "crack the whip" than you might be used to. Above all, don't go off the property for any self-paced activities or "unauthorized" visits north to the seaside resorts of say, Boston or New York City, to stretch your legs and enjoy a little, er, "freedom."

But, I have digressed. The point that struck me was how easy one could substitute the "N Word" for slavery and continue reading -- thinking "oh, boy that's gonna be real funny." And I was thinking that's how so many people tell disparaging ethnic jokes and racial jokes and gay jokes and feel okay doing it. It's okay for me, cause the "next guy" likes 'em too. Don't blame me for telling these jokes -- or laughing at them, or letting 'em slide by -- cause everybody else is telling 'em, or laughing at 'em or letting 'em slide right by.

Now Josh didn't really mean he likes slavery jokes, as far as I know.... I'll take him at his word that he was just a bit "inartful" in his choice of words... In the future, he might choose "a good tarbaby joke" instead. Perhaps what he meant to say was "that for the first time in his adult life" he found himself laughing out loud at something he would have ordinarily "rejected and denounced."

But then again, he might just enjoy a decent 5 cent cigar and good slavery joke with his bourbon and branch. Just as much as the next guy.