Letters to the Editor
bystander
Published Letters: 1486
-
MAV in Florida
[Read the article: Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I always thought that if his first answer had been left alone, it might have been a lesser issue.
I'm not so sure. During peacetime? Yes. I think that response would fly. Given Iraq, and the position the Right has taken - especially, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as GWB/Cheney posture towards Iran - it can't fly. Or, it shouldn't be allowed to fly.
The tendency for these Republican candidates to push for endless war, on a flimsy if not outright false premise, having themselves never experienced a day in combat, having their children be forever shielded from the threat, makes it too easy for them to embroil this country in economic wars in the future.
The bare naked fact is they value their own lives above the lives of the citizens they seek to lead. Their needs, their wants, their dreams, their choices all come first...always. And, it is this demonstration of unchecked/unmoderated/unashamed/unabashed psychological, financial, social, political and, dare I say, spiritual greed (yes, greed), that I find so abhorrent.
I see it less as hypocrisy than I see it as theft.
-
Heads up
[Read the article: Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Christy Hardin Smith is now live blogging the FISA mark up at FDL, for those interested.
-
Confusing on immunity for telecoms
[Read the article: Important day for FISA and amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Commenter cboldt at FDL indicates that since Title II wasn't reported out of committee, it stands as is.
The fact that SJC didn’t “report out” Title II just means, I think, that Title II is as reported out by Intelligence. SJC had their chance to have their say, and saying nothing, that part of the bill leaves SJC in the same form it entered.
.
The question of telecom immunity won’t be settled in the first go-around in the Senate. It looks as though the House will pass something, which sets the stage for a conference committee, where things can really be hammered out minus public debate, then hurried through both chambers just before some holiday recess.
.
I don’t see the presence of telecom amnesty as preventing the Senate from taking up and passing S.2248. It might take 60 votes to proceed to the bill, and then to limit debate on the bill, but those votes are there. Then it takes 51 to pass it, and that is an easy hurdle.
.
The way I see it, it’s not “No Title II from SJC.” It’s “No change to Title II from SJC.” SJC got the bill from Intelligence, made adjustments to Title I, and didn’t touch Title II.
But, Wired (http://tinyurl.com/27u9nz) is reporting:
Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.
The biggest winner from the development is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose suit against AT&T in federal court would almost certainly have been wiped out by the immunity provision.
The provision - which was part of the version passed by the Senate Intelligence committee in mid-October - was widely expected to make it into the bill, due to the administration's full court press on the issue, the telcos small army of lobbyists and the vocal support of California Democrat Dianne Feintstein. Feinstein's vote was expected to reverse the Dems 10-9 advantage in the committee.
But after a long day of complicated finagling over technical amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and proposed alternatives to total immunity for companies such as AT&T and Verizon, committeee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) decided to send the bill out of committee without an agreement on immunity.
Updates to come.
-
Still confused
[Read the article: Important day for FISA and amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The AP is reporting (http://tinyurl.com/2ldg5x):
Congress Takes Up Terrorist Surveillance
.
By PAMELA HESS – 25 minutes ago
.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee punted on Thursday over whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly helping the government eavesdrop on Americans.
.
That decision — the main sticking point in a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — will be left to the full Senate. The FISA law dictates when the government must obtain court permission to conduct electronic eavesdropping, and President Bush has promised to veto any rewrite that does not provide legal immunity to telecom companies. Bush argues that the lawsuits could bankrupt the companies and reveal classified information....
-
Good Grief
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A 42 page single spaced memorandum? 42 pages? Single spaced?
Already this thesis is in trouble. First, they tortured logic. Then, they tortured the language...
-
ThisIsLi
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's good! I clearly don't have your talent, so I am happy to serve as your muse.
-
Anonymust, et al
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd argue in favor of Republikant with the "k" instead of a "c."
*sticks out more
*alludes to the KKK
*raises the old ghosts of Amerika (or, was that Amerikka?)
I also like the notion of a Republikantor.
I think they forfeit the "c".
PS. The folks at FDL have continued to probe the status of FISA and the shape of things to come, if you haven't yet clicked over there today. Got to give those folks credit. They do rally their troops. FISA rock meet FDL hard place.
-
Anonymust
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You'll have to refresh/correct my memory. No philosophy student I. To whom do we attribute a Leap Of Faith? Kierkegaard?
A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. - Wikipedia
If we can step by Kant to Kierkegaard, we may have a winner.