I have written an e-mail to Obama's senate office and also called his campaign headquarters here in Chicago to see if he had issued a statement about the Senate bill. The person with whom I spoke read the same statement Obama issued yesterday that Glenn linked to. It is even more vaucous coming out of the mouth of a twenty-something campaign volunteer. When I asked if the statement meant that Obama would be opposing the bill, she responded "yes, that is what it implies." Unfortunately, I was interrupted by another telephone call here at work and was not able to follow up with any questions regarding Senator Dodd's hold on the bill.

I suspect that Rahm Emmanuel and other like-minded Democratic operatives are telling Obama to not take a definite stand on the issue, especially now that Dodd has taken the first step. It appears that Obama is just another in a long line of dutiful footsoldiers from the Illinois Republicrat party.

On a different note, while I believe that calling all Democratic senators is a good idea, it is not enough. We also need to call all Republican Senators, even though it will very likely do no good. More importantly, we need to call the telecoms and let them know we do not approve of their attempts to buy immunity for what we can only conclude are their illegal actions under an illegal program. I stated in a previous post a few days back that one way to get the telecoms to pay attention would be to refuse to pay our bills. Several million missed payments a month should wake them up. If they want the money, make them institute several million small claims actions/arbitrations. We could then assert their illegal actions as an affirmative defense (e.g., breach of contract, unclean hands). This is also a way to get around any immunity that is eventually passed. While the telecoms would not be subject to liability, their actions could still potentially prevent them from recovering their bills.

Finally, we should also write/e-mail/call the lobbyists! They always seem to get a free pass from the public, since almost all of our anger is directed toward the politicians. However, it is the lobbyists who start the ball rolling. Make them spend more time opening and/or answering their mail so that they have less time to speak with (sorry, I mean bribe) Congress. For those lobbyists who are also practicing attorneys, we should also explore whether some of their actions violate various state rules of professional conduct, and then report these violations to the respective attorney disciplinary commissions. Of course, lawyers from big firms (where the lobbyists typically reside) tend to not get disciplined; rather, it is the solo and small firm attorneys that make up the majority of disciplinary proceedings, which provides an interesting parallel to the treatment of corporations versus individuals that one poster commented on earlier.

As you may have guessed, I am a lawyer, although ironically I defend one of the largest retailers in the country against personal injury and commercial matters. Presumably, I would be a Republican, except I have a brain (no apologies to Ann Coulter). Too bad the same cannot be said for the majority of the lawyers in Congress, who seem to desire giving the president new ways to break the law, or to excuse any lawbreaking that was previously done.

After seeing this post I spent what appears to have been almost two hours searching for Colonel Boylan on the internet. For a while all I could find were e-mail exchanges, so I began to think that he was a fictional character. However, I finally found an article from the Stars & Stripes from June 10, 2001, quoting Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, who was listed as a spokesman for Camp Zama in Japan. There was also a photograph, which shows a nondiscript white male, mid-to late thirties with close cropped brown hair graying slightly at the temples. The story involved the resignation of an individual who had spoken to the press about certain things he observed at the camp. The army did not appreciate his comments and gave him certain undesirable assignments, leading to his resignation. The comments from Lt. Col. Boylan contain a hint of the snippy tone in his e-mail to Glenn. The other e-mail exchanges and comments I read from him contain the same flippant and unprofessional tone.

From my research, I was able to piece together a partial biography for him prior to his current assignment (part of the reason I began to think he was imaginary is that I could find no biographical data from him):

Graduated from Mercer University in Atlanta, Georgia, a Baptist liberal arts college - Actually, not even certain he graduated; Powerlineblog had a link to a Michelle Malkin column from October 2005, which had a link to Mercer University; however, the link was no longer there, so I could not determine what information it contained.

June 10, 2001 - Spokesman at Camp Zama, Japan

March 2002 - March 2003 - Head of Public Affairs for 8th Army Korea; interestingly, while stationed in South Korea in 2002 he was attacked and stabbed by three South Korean nationals the day after an anti-US rally in Soeul; just a minor cut that did not require stitches.

December 15, 2006 - Chief, Strategic Communication Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. It looks like this post was between his first and second tours in the Combined Press Information Center in the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

In sum, Colonel Boylan appears to be a career Army PR hack who probably joined the ROTC at Mercer University, where he probably majored in communications. Alumni records at Mercer are available only to other Mercer Alumni, so I could not find out when (if) he graduated. Of course, he may also have majored in Christianity, given what we know of this administration's hiring and promotion policies. It would be interesting to hear from any Mercer Alumni who knew Colonel Boylan when he attended Mercer.