Talking to Clouds

Desperation or Stupidity

talkingtoclouds — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:25:22 +0000

I used to be pretty happy with the Clintons. I remember laughing at Bill’s language-defying attempts to slide past prior indiscretions — “I didn’t inhale” and idiosyncratic word-definitions, among others — and I didn’t really care about his failure to testify honestly about Monica. After all, Presidents drink and do drugs and then deny or excuse it. A reckless youth is probably part and parcel of leadership. One almost expects adulterers to lie about it; it would feel a bit odd if the response was “Of COURSE I’ve been sleeping around”… and it’s not like somebody’s life is on the line.

But recently they’ve been trading a bit too heavily on that credit. Repeating Republican frames, attacking Obama’s patriotism, or attacking critics who do no more than point out lies, does nothing but damage to her own credibility. I’m ready for a President that is in touch with reality and sees the world for what it is, not one that believes his or her own spin over facts. And recently that candidate hasn’t been Clinton. Obama at least owns his flaws.

And Bill, if you did indeed intend to express a desire for a Presidential campaign that moved beyond questions about patriotism to questions about real policy… Well, you should have said that instead of fitting your actual words neatly into a 5-second attack ad. You expect us to believe that you weren’t aware of how that sentence would be played? Please. “Oh, I didn’t mean to say he was unpatriotic, I actually ment…” You have highly-paid people whose job it is to know exactly how those words would play, and attempting to step away from them now just smells.

And if being a liberal isn’t good enough for Clinton and her mouthpuppet Penn, then fuck them. She must be too conservative to be my candidate until there’s no actual liberals left.

Let’s do the timewarp again!

talkingtoclouds — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:39:10 +0000

High-level al-Qaida figure captured? Al Qaeda might try to influence election? First off, the press really needs to decide how to spell Al Quaida, and second, is this 2002, 2004, 2006, or 2008? It seems like every time we get close to any election, the fearmongering cycles up, but this song-and-dance is getting old.

We’ve seen it all before. The administration announces the capture of a new high-level suspect (who will eventually be charged with vague conspiracy crimes, despite initial reports of dirty bombs/plots du jour) in order to remind us that A: Al Queda wants to harm us, and B: They’re busy being effective in the War on Terruh. Meanwhile, candidates warn us that we should expect imminent terruh attacks as the evildoers attempt to influence the outcome of the election (by implication, helping to elect Democratic candidates is a primary goal of terruhrists).

We’ve seen it all before, and the public wasn’t buying it in 2006. For McCain to be singing the fear song this early, while the administration desperately tries to sell their latest foot-soldier as the big cheese himself just smells of Neocon desperation.

May the best candidate win

talkingtoclouds — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:48:50 +0000

Regardless of the weakly supported claims about his Iseman links, McCain is busy burying his lobbying links, while his campaign staff disintegrates under its own corrupt weight. Glad we can trust Ol’ Straight Talk.

Meanwhile, both Democratic candidates seem determined to smear each other with accusations of smearing each other. Hillary circulates baseless accusations of plagiarism while Obama circulates anti-NAFTA flyers with questionable information. The common thread here is they’re all politicians and they’re all dirty.

It’s no wonder that Obama’s message of hope & change resonates so well. We’re all sick of the system, and the slim hope that one less-insidey insider will bring change seems like the best straw to grasp.

Let’s be honest: Anybody running from a position in the House or Senate is already so steeped in DC culture that they’re an insider, as we outsiders understand the term. And you’d better believe that the Washington Press Corps and both political parties are experts when it comes to closing ranks against the outsider. Accusations of inexperience, a general lack of credibility, and a complete willingness to shrug off any un-anointed outsider running on a platform of change ensures that there will never be a substantial shakeup of our system.

Three cheers for the new guy, same as the old guy.

McWho?

talkingtoclouds — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:50:13 +0000

I stopped paying attention to the election over the weekend, mostly because nothing had happened for a while and the Talking Heads were busy crowning McCain in GOPland and whining about how nobody could tell what the Dems were doing.

Imagine my surprise when I tuned back in to hear that McCain was neck-and-neck with Huckabee and Ron Paul in Washington. Not only that, but Romney, who had withdrawn, and, while he didn’t exactly endorse McCain did make it clear that he was yielding the race to him, pulled 15%. I think it might be a bad sign when candidates who have dropped out are doing that well.

As Newsweek runs stories about how the Right hates McCain, I’m hearing that Bush plans to hand him his seal of approval. His brother’s paving the way. Of course, the current President has never had a great grasp on property rights… Doesn’t he know you can’t give title that you don’t have?

No real point here, other than this. If the voter turnout split down party lines in Washington looks at all like the Primary during the general election, “landslide” won’t quite cover it.

Tiramisu or Twinkies?

talkingtoclouds — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:09:04 +0000

What would you prefer? Looking at a naturally cute dude and/or lady, or staring at a photoshopped image that has been carefully prepared to appeal to your taste?

People are talking, but nobody’s listening:

“Senate Intelligence Committe Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) is arguing for immunity. From OpenSecrets: he has four telecomm-related firms in his top 20 contributors (AT&T Inc, 2; Time Warner, 5; Verizon, 7; National Cable & Telecommunications Assn, 20). He is standing for re-election in 2008.”

It’s a vicious cycle. Big-money campaigns create employ top of the line spindoctors to manage a slick media image, which manage things down to the point where it’s actually a question if spontaneous tearing up is just another ploy to “seem more human”. There are indeed two princes here before us, but this time both of them have diamonds in their pockets, which they scatter before us with abandon. Don’t get me wrong, here, the other side is no better. This is a poison that transcends party lines.

It’s probably just part and parcel with our modern sensibilities. Flash, flair, and being first off the mark with a story, no matter how inaccurate have become the tools of modern news, with investigative reporting taking a (distant) sideline to the latest equivalent of “Man bites dog” strange news.

What this all adds up to is politicians being bought and sold by business interests, selling their allegiances on every point they can without alienating their core constituents (and that can be fudged with a slick media campaign), all in the hopes of getting enough money to pull off another slick media campaign to get back into office.

The real question is: Why? Candidates no longer need money to push their message. Any schmuck with a video camera and a computer can put videos on the internet now. The only purpose money serves now is to fund the obfuscation that all the candidates engage in. If people want a government they can trust again, it’s time to pull the plug on spin and start electing candidates based on their real policy. No campaign material that isn’t a straight on discussion of the issues. No ad spots. No media-friendly debates designed to highlight the newest 5-second soundbyte. Simple videos of honest discussion of the issues facing our government. While we’re at it, cut out the insufferable talking heads.

Boring? Sure. We’d probably lose half our already-anemic voting body without the media glitz. But at least the people who did vote would have a real chance to evaluate the politicos on their policy and not on their media image.

It’s not like it hasn’t been said before…

talkingtoclouds — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:34:55 +0000

In fact, it’s been said ever since we got there (you can check all those links if you want, but they all just talk about lies). When Hussein is the gold standard (oh, gee, was he actually telling the truth there?) for truth, the country has problems.

I can’t decide if it’s comforting or depressing that we’re in the middle of another Bush-lies cycle. They seem to crop up on internet media sites like Digg or Fark on a semi-regular basis, but they never really manage to accomplish much. After all, we re-elected him in 2004 in the middle of one of these cycles. On the other hand, the cycle has gotten louder and closer to MSM each time. It certainly was a factor in 2006, when the cycle was much louder than ’04. And it certainly seems to be cresting now, with websites like www.publicintegrity.org creating documents like the Bush War Card just in time for the run up to the election.

Of course, chances are with the short attention span of the media in general and the internet in particular, this particular story will be gone and largely forgotten at about the same time it actually matters.Oh well.

One more step along the path…

talkingtoclouds — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:25:22 +0000

This bill, introduced to the House by Christopher Shays, purports to require “ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran”. Yeah.

Let’s be honest, shall we? This is a transparent ploy to justify a brand-new war in the Middle East. The “ongoing assessments” will dutifully report that sanctions do nothing, or are at best unclear. This will be used as yet another reason to justify ongoing aggression, and increase our presence in the region. After all, it’s not like Our Dear Leader isn’t capable of using faked and misleading reports to rush the country into another land war in ~~Asia~~ the Middle East.

Keep in mind that this bill has been proposed by Chris Shays, who was more than happy to push the war in Iraq for years and act as an apologist for our crimes. Of course, he’s switched sides in the debate now, distancing himself from a war unpopular in his own district, perhaps expecting a difficult 2008 campaign.

At least I don’t live in his district anymore.

talkingtoclouds — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:06:10 +0000

Dear Congressman Lungren,

Where oh where did you get the idea that we like being wiretapped (I know, old story, but it still matters)? And why would we want to give the Telecom Industry a free pass for enabling it?

Yes, yes, we all understand that wiretapping is an important tool in the fight against domestic terrorism, or whatever the soundbyte of the day is, but that “necessary tool” can be restrained to protect the rights of American citizens without harming our safety. After all, Lungren argues, “The attempt to legislate warrant requirements on foreign individuals outside the U.S. based on whether they place a call to another foreign destination or to a U.S. destination would create an impossible nightmare for our foreign intelligence operations.” (Keep that link handy, I’ll be referring back to his speech again)

As it happens, FISA § 1805, “Issuance of order”, provides…

“(f) Emergency orders

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.”

Now, perhaps I misunderstand, but the plain language seems pretty clear that as long as the Attorney General or a designated person notifies one of the FISA judges at the time the wiretap is deployed and gets an application in front of the court within 3 days after the wiretapping, they’re clear to go.

I fail to see how, exactly, this poses an insurmountable burden for our intelligence services. If we’re trusting these people with our security they should be able to find the time to get a piece of paper rubber-stamped by a kangaroo court as a token of good faith.

I mean, as the system is set up it may or may not be mere lip service to the Constitution, but it seems that these process serve the important purpose of reminding our law enforcement apparatus that they are in fact bound by the law in their investigations. Heck, the FISA Court may even occasionally bestir itself to block a particularly egregious abuse of the wiretap system. We should be so lucky.

Returning to Lungren, he treats us to this little gem:

“Not only did the majority party’s legislation, which passed this body in November, fail to address the needs of the intelligence community, it also added insult to injury by throwing under the bus those telecommunications providers who responded to the call of their government after 9/11. And if the press reports are true, the issue of liability protection for these companies is one of the major sticking points of FISA in the other body.”

Because, you know, God forbid we actually obey the law on our little witch-hunt. Lungren goes on to compare the lawbreaking telecos to “a doctor who comes upon an automobile accident”. Now, forgive me, but comparing a company spying on me on behalf of Uncle Sam to a passer-by stopping to administer CPR seems a bit of a stretch. After all, we have the Good Samaritan laws because, as Lungren helpfully reminds us, “it is better to have people coming to the aid of their countrymen, coming to the aid of someone who is in need.”

He’s right about one thing, though. ”And this has nothing to do with what you think of President Bush. It has nothing to do with what you think about the war in Iraq or the larger war on terrorism. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic issue.”

Care to guess whose issue this is? Bought and paid for by your local telecom industry, hoping against hope to jam full-fledged immunity to lawsuit down the public’s throat before they can be forced to pay for their crimes. Perhaps Lungren should pull his snout away from the corporate trough long enough to read this document again, with an especial eye towards Amendments I and IV.

Read the full transcript of Lungren’s speech here, in case you missed the link above.

Can You Take Huckabee Seriously?

talkingtoclouds — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:42:55 +0000

I <3 Huckabee, mostly because I don’t think he can win a national election. But what scares me is his ability to win primaries, despite, or because of, the full-on crazy things he says. Some people, apparently unaware of how deep the crazy goes, actually endorse his candidacy because of his honest, “populist” message. Of course, nothing says “electable” like a mandate from God.

Taking the front is his newest proposal, amending the Constitution so that “it’s in God’s standards”.

Of course, this ignores his apocalyptic worldview. This country needs to be planning for the next hundred years, not engaging in brinksmanship because the Commander-In-Chief believes that World War III heralds the return of Christ The Lord and the inevitable victory of Heaven. The problems that currently face our country, such as the environment, oil and coal dependency (at roughly 43% of our total power production), the widening class gap, and the tanking economy, just to name a few, are long-term difficult problems that will require careful planning and foresight. Not exactly the traits associated with cultists expecting the world to end.

To me, a serious candidate should be presenting a long-term view for the country, planning ahead for the challenges that will face us in the next century. Whether or not you accept the Bible as literal fact or illustrative metaphor, the next President can’t be elected on a platform of imminent destruction.