Glenn, I don't understand

Is just a single sentence putting a stop to the ad campaign on Comcast?

"[Carney] wants to pardon phone companies who broke the law and gave thousands to his campaign."

Why not just remove or alter the offending paragraph so that the bulk of the message gets across? It is not ideal and highly unethical of Comcast to do this, but why not just "surrender"?

Because Comcast doesn't want it run, period. As detailed in previous columns, their "reasons" for not running the ad are prevarications and slipshod "legalese".

Cheers,

Just saw Glenn's response to MrMaps. Now Comcast is going to sue me for defamation, I guess.... Oh, well, I happen to know a good First Amendment lawyer....

Cheers,

He looks like a "Centrist", working with the other side of isle to "compromise", kind of like Centrist Joe Liebermann.

He would make a great Centrist Independent like Holy Joe. Working with the worst of both sides in order to screw everybody else, aka The Third Way at its best.

In fact, I've never heard anyone in the telecom amnesty debate ever deny that the telecoms broke the law. How could anyone deny that?

That's the basis for your statement that someone is guilty of a crime? "Everybody" says so? I think it's safe to assume that you've never used that line in court.
Meanwhile, back at the NYT opinion page, that's all it is, an opinion. Buying ad time to declare someone guilty of a crime is something else.

I'm really glad this wiretapping bill has gotten under Glenn's skin as much as it's gotten under mine. For some reason, this of all the miserable and unconstitutional actions of the Bush Administration, bothers me most, probably because it's basically the Bush Administration saying "we can get to any of you, and you can't stop us". If we can't stop them from illegal wiretapping, then we can't stop them from any of their other criminal activities.

I'm not someone who can generally afford to spend $100 on a campaign in a district where I don't live, but this one is important enough to me that I felt I had to do what I could to help out. We have to send a clear message to our Democratic senators and congressmen that if they're going to aid and abet something that's this bad, we're going to go after them and we won't forget.

That Comcast is comfortable enough in their ownership of elected officials that they think they can play this way, they have to be taught a lesson too. I'm not in a position to do very much there, except to cancel my Comcast service, but I've done that. When it comes right down to it, I really don't need cable television anyway - not when I've got the internet. And if Comcast can get away with this, we might not have the Internet for long either.

Anyway, stay strong Glenn. A lot of us count on you.

It's called an access fee and it's typically paid to the municipality. Like Cary, NC which gets 15% of Time Warner's billings in Cary, off the top for the exclusive right to deliver cable service. It's highly unlikely that municipalities are going to stand on ceremony and give up that kickback.

Now consider that POTS will eventually have to compete on equal footing with VoIP which is subject to none of the same tariffs, taxes and regulations, or Federal oversight, and you start to see the irrelevance of this whole topic soon. Unlike POTS If you want to use a strong encryption dialer for VoIP it's pretty mundane. Even the NSA would have a hard time cracking it in a cost effective manner. So perhaps in the end you just have to make it impractical for the government to spy on you.

As always, one of the most secure forms of electronic conversation in a scenario where automation is skimming all traffic looking for something relevant, as opposed to a targeted tap on a unique conversation, is a handwritten fax. Machines still have a devil of a time decoding that. Put it in a foreign language it's even harder.

Do you notice anything glaringly obvious?

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. I share both your strong opposition to this special interest provision and your frustration that the President and his supporters in Congress continue to push it. This fight is just one more example of why things in Washington must change.

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was in regard to the conduct of the Iraq war or its restrictions on our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs or suspension of habeas corpus. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and rejecting this unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity is a good place to start.

Giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies is simply wrong. Thankfully, the most recent effort to pass this legislation at the end of the legislative year failed. I unequivocally oppose this grant of immunity and support the filibuster of it. I cosponsored Senator Dodd’s proposal that would remove it from the current FISA bill.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to continuing to wage this fight.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

-----------------

Paid for by Obama for America