FISA and burn

After watching the disappointments of the last few weeks surrounding this FISA bill, Keith Olbermann does the best job outlining my thought process -- at least the Bush is a fascist who uses terrorism on his own country part. This new special comment is more proof that Olbermann is in fact a baller, because this is about the 4th or 5th time he has called Bush a fascist. I like the Ted Kennedy quote: "So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

It's strange that we've come so far under this reigme of fear, that a threat coming from our president of an attack so big, it will "bring destruction to our shores that will make September 11 pale by comparison", immediately sets off everybody's bullshit detectors. I have such seething hatred for the people that have driven our country to this position. I feel like it is going to take our lifetime to reverse everything they've done up to this point. Not to mention my new found disdain for Senate Democrats who have repeatedly proven to be as full of shit as their GOP friends. At least there is a three week extension in the House passed by a very slim majority. There is no more need for debate, pass the bill without the immunity and let the President veto. 

Dodd Speech

Yesterday, in Senate, Chris Dodd gave a dynomite speech... well it reads like a dynomite speech anyway, I looked through C-SPAN and was unable to procure video, and he's really old so he probably didn't vocalize it as well as it looks on paper (did you know Dodd was on the committee that investigated the Kennedy assassination?-- just a little fact). The topic of the speech= FISA courts.

"We reject the view that the traditional American principles of justice and fair play have no place in our struggle against the enemies of freedom. Moreover, our investigation has established that the targets of intelligence activity have ranged far beyond persons who could properly be characterized as enemies of freedom. .....

We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes."
-Senator Dodd

He also later gives a staggering figure:

"As for the FISA court? Between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA Court approved 18,748 warrants and rejected 5. Let me repeat that. The FISA Court, according to the Washington Post, approved 18,748 warrants and rejected 5. The FISA Court has sided with the executive branch 99.9 percent of the time."
-Senator Dodd

That is something I was unaware of. This speech reads well, at least page s868 does (there are quite a few pages). Chris Dodd is the tits.

Whose best interests?

This Washington Post article discusses the recent credit card interest rate hikes experienced by many individuals done in an effort by banking institutions to recoup their recent losses due to the credit crunch and a weakening economy. What we're seeing is increased load on the people of our country to make up for losses incurred by banking corporations when many of us have already taken a hit financially for one reason or another ourselves (often that reason is terribly poor financial planning - the individual's fault for being ignorant in most cases). The Fed's rate cuts in the recent past, amounting to 2.25% since September, are said to be in the interest of our country as a whole. Ideally, lowering interest rates allows individuals and businesses to buy more and to pay less on the purchases they have already made, but when the banks don't pass these rate cuts to the people, and indeed in some cases raise their rates, the people are affected more and the banks are given an opportunity to make up for their lost profits that were due to financial decisions equally foolish to those made by many of our people. Just another example of corporate back-scratching by our government when the powers that be decide to do nothing when it's obvious that the banks are looking out only for their own interests and preserving profits, not the best interest of the people. The article does however mention keeping an eye on the activities of these companies intended on curbing the use of these rate cuts for their sole benefit, but I'm not holding my breath for any real action to be taken or for these "watchdogs" to decide that the banks are in the wrong.

In other news, Keith Olbermann is the mann:

I know I've been blowing up the page, but...

Sorry, I've posted a lot today, but I came across the bill that Pres just signed into law. It's called the Protect America Act of 2007, and, as the White House reports, it has four basic provisions:

1. Allows the intelligence community to gather intel- phones, internet, etc- without needing court issued warrants.

2. Provides for FISA courts to review intelligence procedures to ensure the target is actually overseas.

3. "The Act Provides For The FISA Court To Direct Third Parties To Assist The Intelligence Community In Its Collection Efforts. The Act permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct third parties to provide the information, facilities, and assistance necessary to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located overseas."

4. "The Act Protects Third Parties From Private Lawsuits Arising From Assistance They Provide The Government."

"To direct third parties to provide the information." I was cool with the first two provisions, though I find it unjust, it concerns a law better suited for regulation by an international organization. The last two, however, force a private company to comply with NO WARRANT. I understand forced compliance with a warrant, but without? poppycock. absolute poppycock. And the name? The Protect America Act? Come on... We had enough after the "aptly" named Patriot Act. I know it's a technique that will probably never die, because it is so effective in rallying the bowtied troops, but stop.