I'm all for political gamesmanship. Beyond rhetoric and ideology leaders must be ready and able to out manoeuvre there opponents. During the campaign season - and particularly now with just a week to go before the all important Texas and Ohio primaries - we can get a sense for how a prospective candidate's administration would get things done in Washington should we choose to elect them.

Case in point: The Clinton campaign has taken to circulating a photo of their opponent Barack Obama dressed as a Somali Elder during a five nation tour of Africa. The image depicts Senator Obama in traditional garb as is a common practice for foreign dignitaries. For their part, I imagine the Clinton campaign is attempting to seize upon the CNN and MSNBC stories that question Senator Obama's patriotism. Stories which repeat rumors and falsehoods as fact in their headlines and leading paragraphs, only to set the record straight deeper - far more so than most readers care to venture - in their articles.

"Last summer, [Senator] Obama was photographed by Time magazine at an event in Iowa standing with his hands folded during the national anthem. His primary rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson appear beside him, with their hands on their hearts...It has been repeatedly reported that the moment came during the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's not the case."

It's well played, but nasty, and ultimately reaffirms my belief that Senator Clinton knows no bounds. She will stoop to any level, and do anything necessary to win. Our nation has dabbled with a Lord of the Flies president. We have made our deals with shady characters to "get the job done." We have learned that expediency at the cost of virtue is a loosing proposition.

Plus, who can fault the guy for wearing ceremonial dress? It's polite. It's diplomatic. And everyone does it.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Patriotism

Engadget reviews the Optimus Maximus keyboard. I love technology with near limitless potential.

Labels: technology

Two important pieces related to the recent flap over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act overhaul legislation known as the Protect America Act. The first from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann - channeling Edward R. Murrow in this damned fine Special Comment:


And the second, a letter to the President of the United States of America refuting his assertions and fear mongering from the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas).

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Labels: fisa, Keith Olbermann, nsa, patriot act, Silvestre Reyes, technology

Immunity for telecommunications companies who illegally assisted the Bush Administration in collecting data on US citizens has passed the US Senate.

Senator Obama voted to uphold the law and deny immunity for unscrupulous corporations.

Senator Clinton did not believe that our civil rights, or the standing law of the land was worth the trouble of voting.

In a previous post I described my attempt to share my concerns with a fellow Maine Democratic Party member about Hillary Clinton's stance - or lack thereof - on the issue of warrantless wiretaps.

We know telecommunications companies have been illegally forwarding records of our phone calls, emails, and web traffic to government agencies without judicial oversight. We do not know where this information is stored, how long it will be stored for, or who has access to it. Unfortunately, our government has a very poor record of safeguarding our personal data. Ask a veteran. Won't someone please get me off the AARP mailing list?

So, I'd like to say I told you so to the little old lady in the red hat. We have Senator Clinton to thank - at least in part - for what may happen should our identities and personal information be stolen, sold, leaked, or lost from this corporate-government information sharing database. I wish you the best of luck reclaiming your identity, repairing your credit, getting off a no-fly list, or re-entering the country after a holiday abroad unmolested by over-zealous border security agents.

Cheers!

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, tia, warrantless wiretaps

I arrived at Portland High School at 1:30 in the afternoon today. As the snow began to fall and the chanters began, I took my place in the swelling crowd. I was cold and soaked through when I actually got into the school at 2:30, but I had it good. Others were still in line outside as late as 6:30.

I knew what to expect: Long lines, overworked volunteers, and crazy people who were apparently my neighbors. Good times. What I didn't expect was the hate.

I found myself in line with a small gang of grandmothers. They were complaining about the crowd, and tsking the fact that the party hadn't held the caucus in the Civic Center. Typical gripes really, and nothing I hadn't heard from others in the crush of would-be voters, but then it got nasty. It started with a sneering jibe at the folks – mostly young Obama supporters – waiting in an opposing line to register to vote. "If you were so enthusiastic to vote, why didn't you register before today," one of them muttered to her coven. This was meet with general approval before she turned to me and noticed my "Obama for ME" sign.

She was a grandmother in a red hat complete with tell tale purple accessories. "You're on the wrong side," she said, her Hillary sticker proudly displayed. I welcomed the recognition, and readied myself for her pitch, it was a caucus after all, but I wasn't expecting the curve. "He's a Muslim you know."

I'm not sure if my eyes actually popped or not, but she backtracked quickly with a: "That's what I hear." Even after six years, I'm still not used to the racism/xenophobia I encounter here in Maine. It's a quiet racism. Insidious. But I dropped into posture quickly and shot back. "Actually he's a Christian. Not that it would matter to me even if he was a Muslim." Now it was her turn to be shocked...and she was...for about a nanosecond. Then she asked what I knew about this guy anyway, and exactly where did he get his money from?

I in turn asked about Hillary's stock trading record with Tyson Foods and Walmart, but this only pushed her Bill Oreilly buttons and caused her to breathlessly demand that I answer her question. Who is this Obama guy? Where did he come from? Was he a Republicans plant?

I tried to take the wheel of this train to crazy-town and explained that I support Barack Obama because of his platform. Specifically his pledge to open government, and his science and technology policies as endorsed by the EFF. Attempting to explain the EFF to a red-hat wearing racist crone is a good time. I highly recommend it if you have the means. At any rate, she promised me that the good folks up in Aroostook County would never vote for a black man, and that Obama didn't have a chance in Maine. That's where the line ended and we parted ways.

By 8:30 tonight, our votes where cast and counted. In my precinct I'm happy to report that the final tally was 374 for Obama and 104 for Clinton.

Barack Obama carried the great state of Maine.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, maine