Booman Tribune ~ FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots

FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots

by BooMan
Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 01:27:53 PM EST

The American Prospect's Art Levine asks a question.

Why wasn't there greater mobilization against the warrantless surveillance bill passed earlier this month?

And then he provides "A look at what Congressional Democrats, advocacy groups, and the netroots were doing in the run-up to the bill's passage."

There's a simple answer to this question. The Netroots and the advocacy groups were not told that the Democrats were considering anything more than a tweak of the FISA bill. We were not aware that they were going to gut FISA. In fact, we were assured they would not do a major rewrite.

Caroline Fredrickson, the legislative director of the ACLU, is still fuming over the way Democrats reneged on reassurances she says they offered in late July to liberal groups -- particularly at a key meeting on July 20 -- that they wouldn't move any major revisions to the current FISA law before getting the answers they sought about the current warrantless wiretapping program.
"They turned around and screwed us over -- and the Constitution -- all at once," she says of the fast-moving FISA legislation that left the ACLU and other groups scrambling to stop it.

Greenwald characterized the situation accurately:

Glenn Greenwald, perhaps the most influential civil-liberties writer on the Web, recalls that despite many leading bloggers being at the YearlyKos convention, he and most others didn't even start focusing on the menace the bill posed until newspapers reported that the House would consider a FISA bill on that Friday, Aug. 3. It later became clear that this controversial measure was being considered under a no-amendment "suspension" rule that required a two-thirds vote to pass, essentially dooming the Democrats' more moderate version...
Looking back, Greenwald admits now, "I thought there was nothing to worry about. There was no way the Democrats will do anything beyond fixing this one gap [foreign-to-foreign communications]. It was unthinkable."

There's a story to tell here, but it isn't about a failure on the part of the ACLU or the Netroots. More than anything else, I'm astonished the Netroots has gained so much clout that we could actually be blamed for the loss of our civil liberties. We don't have that much clout. And we never saw this coming.

FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 1)

The blame, of course, rests solely on the shoulders of "the sheep" who once again capitulated to the classic fear-mongering tactic employed by the administration. The old reliable "if hundreds of thousands die in an attack during the August recess, then it will be on the Democrat's head". Scream that one out and they fold every time. I'm sure Karl Rove was positively beaming.

So in response, after the fact, there were hundreds of thousands of angry missives to the reps. Suddenly they cry foul and ask for a mulligan so they can re-hit and see if maybe they can land their second shot softly in the center of the political fairway. This was after some serious shanking of the first shot into the tall weeds. The Democrats were weasels, plain and simple.

I don't get the sense from Levine's article that he has a full understanding of the blogosphere or netroots in general.

Here's a thought experiment: If the situation were reversed, and a weakened liberal Democratic president tried to quickly ram through legislation, say, restoring full federal funding for abortion, would a Republican-led Congress and the right-wing media let it slide through without a rapid response and a real fight? Not likely.

To say this is an analogous situation and that the blogosphere is now a liberal fighting machine equal in power and influence to the vast corporatized right wing sound machine seems naive and misinformed to me. At this point in time the playing field is nowhere near level. Hopefully, with a lot of hard work, that day will come. But to blame the netroots on this one is just ignorance on Levine's part.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 01:53:51 PM EST

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 0)

The reality of the clout of the Netroots can be seen in the fact that the Democratic Congressional leadership felt the need to hide from us their intentions, and time their actions when they knew people would be least poised to bring wider awareness to them.

Likewise, the story here is that they did so. Harry Reid should be publicly shamed into stepping down. He has revealed himself as a spineless patsy, a wet rag used to clean spills with. He is undeserving of the mantle of leadership.

He is of course not the only one, but for all his posing as a tough guy, he sure has a lot of skill at rolling over.

The more control, the more that requires control. This is the road to chaos. -Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

by chimneyswift on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 01:54:36 PM EST

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 1)

to be honest, i have wondered if there would have been more of a debate over the FISA amendments if the biggest bloggers of the netroots weren't all at the yearly kos.

i'm not trying to blame bloggers for what happened, that blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the congressmen who capitulated. but i remember watching the democrats get outmaneuvered over the course of 24-48 hours, then going to the big blogs and seeing virtually no mention of it on a lot of the sites i frequent. only balkinization covered it well.

by upyernoz (upyernoz [at] yahoo [dot] com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 02:05:52 PM EST

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 0)

...adding:

i though this sounded familiar--i wondered about the yearly kos effect at that time.

and as i said in the post, i don't think the netroots could have stopped the bill. the power of bloggers is overrated IMHO. but there could have been more of a fuss.

by upyernoz (upyernoz [at] yahoo [dot] com) on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democrats are part of the problem (none / 1)

The Netroots may not be to blame, but unless they do some serious soul-searching about why it increasingly appears to be the case that the Democrats are part of the problem and not part of the solution and figure this out, then the Netroots themselves will stop being part of the solution.

The Netroots continue to be in denial about the real function of the Democratic Party in our political system as it is presently configured. The Netroots keep on wringing their hands at the Democrats being so unsuccessful. But the Dems are very successful, if you understand their real function.

The function of the Dem Party is not to serve as an opposition party—to represent the interests of the people as opposed to the interests of wealth, corporations, and empire, which the Republican Party serves. Instead, the Dem Party's function is to maintain the delusional hope that the American political system itself, as it is currently constituted, can arrest and indeed reverse the slide into despotism that the Bush regime has very successfully engineered ever since it stole the 2000 election.

Until the views of people like Chris Floyd and Michael Silber become the conventional wisdom in the Netroots, the effect of the Netroots will be mainly to siphon off the energies of people who try to keep informed about what is happening to our country into activities which do little or nothing to stop the ruling elite from consolidating its power and making ordinary citizens powerless and helpless.

The first step to the Netroots being able to engage the Democrats in an informed and hence rational way is the acceptance of the following four propositions:

Democratic congressmen, senators, and presidential candidates are part of the ruling elite.
The interests of the elite are different than the interests of the people.
Although they nominally represent citizens, politicians, like most human beings, will act in their own interests. Therefore, they will act in the interest of the ruling elite, as opposed to the interest of the people, unless they are prevented from doing so.
The way the system is set up, there is nothing we can do to stop them acting against our interests, since the normal mechanism that democracy is based on of voting representatives out of office if they do not effectively represent your interests does not work any more, since, thanks to the genius of the two-party system, the choice we are almost invariably given (by design) is between bad and worse.

We must get over the silly and naive notion that when the Dems cave to Bush, they are either intimidated or out-maneuvered into doing so. That is based on nothing but sentimentalism, on the feeling that, "deep down", the Dem establishment is "really like us", and that they "care about us". There is absolutely no rational basis for this feeling.

by Alexander on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 02:57:44 PM EST

Re: The Democrats are part of the problem (none / 0)

1. Democratic congressmen, senators, and presidential candidates are part of the ruling elite.

That's true by definition, although it isn't necessarily true that they come from the elite. Patrick Murphy's father was a Philly cop and Murphy attended a small school and joined the army. Carol Shea-Porter was a social worker.

2. The interests of the elite are different than the interests of the people.

Are you running for office? No? Then you don't share the interests of a politician. But politicians will respond to those that have some say (beyond their one vote) in whether they get elected or re-elected.

3. Although they nominally represent citizens, politicians, like most human beings, will act in their own interests. Therefore, they will act in the interest of the ruling elite, as opposed to the interest of the people, unless they are prevented from doing so.

Again, this is true by definition, but the people we put in Congress may not come for the ruling elite before they become the ruling elite. That is why biography is an important consideration when looking at a candidate.

4. The way the system is set up, there is nothing we can do to stop them acting against our interests, since the normal mechanism that democracy is based on of voting representatives out of office if they do not effectively represent your interests does not work any more, since, thanks to the genius of the two-party system, the choice we are almost invariably given (by design) is between bad and worse.

There are plenty of things we can do to prevent them from voting against our interests, and we have already done many things. Here's some perspective.

President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.
The previous low for any president was in 1995, when Bill Clinton won just 26 percent of the time during the first year after Republicans took control of the House. If Bush's score holds through the end of the year, he will have the lowest success rating in either chamber for any president since Congressional Quarterly began analyzing votes in 1953.
A study of House and Senate floor votes, compiled by CQ over the August recess, also showed that House Democrats have backed Bush's legislative positions this year only 6 percent of the time, making for the strongest opposition from either party against a president in the 54 years CQ has kept score.

Here's some more perspective. It might jolt your perception of who is a moderate.

Conventional wisdom held that the Democrats elected to the Senate last year would largely be moderates, trying to tailor their votes in Washington to appeal to as broad a group of voters as possible to secure their seats. If so, that must mean opposing President Bush's agenda is an increasingly moderate proposition.
Three moderate freshmen Senate Democrats have supported Bush less often than at least half of their party's caucus, according to an analysis of roll call floor votes through the start of the summer recess.
Jim Webb of Virginia has supported the president on 49 percent of the 55 roll call votes so far this year on which Bush took a clear position. Claire McCaskill of Missouri's presidential support rate was 47 percent; her freshman colleague Jon Tester of Montana clocked in at 44 percent, a tick below the 45 percent posted by Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
* CQ Party Unity Scores | Presidential Support Scores
For the record, the median support score among Senate Democrats is 51 percent.
Barack Obama of Illinois and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut are the only Democratic senators running for president who so far this year have been more willing to vote Bush's way than they were in 2006. Obama shares his 53 percent score on Bush-backed votes with such luminary liberals as Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii.

by BooMan on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 03:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Democrats are part of the problem (none / 0)

it isn't necessarily true that they come from the elite.

I know that of course; anyway, "elite" is a vague word, and I didn't define it. But you're right, as I was using the word, the statement I made is true by definition.

Anyway, someone can be born into the very top of the elite and still act in the interest of the people, the prime example being FDR, of course. And then you can have someone rise to power from the very dregs of society only to shaft his own people.

There are plenty of things we can do to prevent them from voting against our interests, and we have already done many things.

If you see things in perspective, you will realize that on the three critical issues of the day—ending a futile war, restoring our civil liberties (not to mention keeping them from eroding further, which is the subject of this diary), and restraining a rogue president whose administration now openly proclaims that his will is constrained by nothing (not to mention removing him from office)—we have been able to get the Democrats to do nothing.

* CQ Party Unity Scores | Presidential Support Scores

Voting against Bush when you know your vote will be on the losing side is part of their game. The "classic" example of that was when Pelosi put the Republican FISA bill up for a vote, and then voted against it. That conveys the problem I'm talking about in a nutshell.

The main point I was trying to get across in that post is that when we fall for (or pretend to fall for) the recurring Democratic charade of actually wanting to stop Bush but being unable to do so, for whatever reason, we enable Bush's collaborators, and so become part of the problem ourselves.

If the view were widespread on the Netroots that the Dems actually want to enable Bush—to continue the US occupation of Iraq, to bomb Iran, to make the Office of the President not bound by US law or the Constitution—and that their motions to restrain him are nothing but a confidence game, it would be harder for them to keep on pulling this con off.

by Alexander on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 04:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Democrats are part of the problem (none / 0)

except you are about 90% wrong.

In no meaningful sense do 'the Democrats' not want to end this war, want to bomb Iran, or give the president unwarranted powers. If you think that is what is happening then your analysis is going to off the mark every single time.

There is a foreign policy elite (yes, bipartisan) that thought war in Iraq was a good idea (although they were badly divided). Most of them are unwilling to face up to the consequences of their error or risk serious erosion of our position in the Middle East. Above all, they don't want to take responsibility for what happens in the region as a result of, or following our withdrawal from Iraq. They are procrastinating. They also do not trust the Bush administration to withdrawal in a competent manner and are willing to wait for a new president to do the job.

But this foreign policy elite is not the same thing as 'the Democrats'.

A quick look at the BushDogs shows that the problem in the House is mainly isolated to a bunch white southern dudes, many of which serve on the Armed Services committee. We have a similar problem in the Senate with the Armed Services Committee. Those Senators will not cut off funding.

These same people are the people that caved on FISA. If you read up on it you'll find out that the Dem caucus in the House had a bitter fight over it, with people like Jerrold Nadler and Patrick Murphy insisting that they adjourn without passing the FISA law, and a bunch of Blue Dogs taking the opposite argument. We know who won that argument, and it wasn't 'the Democrats' but a faction withing the Democrats.

This isn't some conspiracy where the Dems secretly agree to go along with the president while publicly opposing him. It's a dynamic within the caucus. And it's also a dynamic where too many Dems are afraid to stick their necks out, especially when all metrics (except generic congressional job approval) show things looking better than ever for the Dems.

by BooMan on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 04:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

... entered the White House. From the very first days of his presidency, I saw that he was doing it all wrong, by giving the Republicans the time of day and treating them as a legitimate political party. They are most certainly not a legitimate party, since they would barely have a single seat in Congress (their sole chances being districts which consist of the wealthiest suburbs) if people voted according to their own interest, that is, if the Republican Party and the corporate media did not conspire to defraud American voters.

Since the Republicans are not a legitimate party (in fact, they are all criminals, since they have conspired in treason, since stealing an election is treason), it is a huge mistake (and unethical as well) for the Democratic leadership to take Congressional Republicans into account when determining what prevailing opinion they should accomodate themselves to.

In other words, when considering what is the majority opinion in Congress, the Democrats should simply ignore the other party: that is exactly what the Republicans did when they controlled Congress. Yes, there are Blue Dogs, but most Congressional Dems are not Blue Dogs. The Republicans together with the Blue Dogs make up a majority over sensible Dems, but if you take out the Rethugs, sensible Dems make up a majority over Blue Dogs.

In cases when the Blue Dogs would side with the Rethugs to vote in undesirable legislation, all the Democratic leadership has to do is not put the legislation up for a vote. That would end the war right there, as you well know.

You can defend the Dem leadership all you want, but all your arguments are based on the premise that the Republicans are a legitimate party, which is simply wrong.

The Republicans treat the Democrats as if they are not a legitimate party. Why should we treat the Republicans as if they are a legitimate party? Look where that has got us.

The Dems pretend that they need to treat the Republicans as legitimate. But they don't. That's just part of their con.

If the Dems behaved toward the Rethugs the way the Rethugs behave toward the Dems, most of our problems would be over.

by Alexander on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 07:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

The President is a Republican. That makes the party legitimate. This argument makes no sense.

You don't seem to understand the political process at all. You can start learning here. How do you think your strategy of not bringing forth bills is going to work out in that context?

by BooMan on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 07:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

The President is a Republican. That makes the party legitimate.

Are you not aware that Bush's presidency is not legitimate, since he was not elected? Something that is illegitimate cannot legitimize something else. Yes, various prescribed rituals were followed to "enthrone" him, but since it was an error to follow them, the fact that they were followed doesn't make Bush's presidency legitimate.

Legitimacy is not a legal concept, but a moral and political one. What creates the impression for most people that Bush is a legitimate president is their impression that most people think that Bush is a legitimate president.

Also, you don't appear to understand that the Republicans see themselves as the only legitimate American party. If they engage in that kind of thinking, why shouldn't we (especially because we would be on much stronger grounds)?

by Alexander on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 10:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

You have to have realistic expectations. I don't have a problem with asking for what you want. I have a problem with expecting something that will not happen.

I also have a problem with analysis that is lazy and inaccurate.

Here's where I agree with you. On the most important issues (the war, civil liberties, and holding this administration accountable) the Democrats have disappointed. And that is unacceptable. But, first of all, let's keep things in perspective. This Congress is the most hostile Congress to a sitting president on record. Okay? That is a far cry from there being no difference between the parties.

The Democrats have pursued a strategy...not the strategy I advocated...but a coherent strategy. That strategy was threefold in your areas of concern.

They would take impeachment off the table, but they would investigate and build a case that might lead to impeachment. Results? Mixed. Goodbye Rove, goodbye most of the Justice Department. But now they are dealing with a constitutional crisis over subpoenas. Let's see how they deal with it.

They would push a lot of Iraq votes and make Republicans pay, over and over again, for supporting the war. The goal was to peel Republicans away from the president. Results: the Republicans can't raise any money or recruit any candidates, they are the most unpopular institution in America. But they still seem unwilling to budge. The ball really is in their court. Do they want to survive as a major party?

Lastly, they would restore our civil liberties. The administration immediately agreed to stop the NSA program, rewrote the Military guide, etc. But the Dems have failed in this area. I give them an 'F'. This is a result, in my opinion, of fear. The only thing that can rescue the Republicans now is another terrorist attack (as they keep pointing out) accompanied by an easy way to blame it on the Democrats. Too many Democrats are afraid of that possibility. They're bedwetters. Either that, or they know their adversaries better than we do, and trust them less.

Regardless, the Republicans have pursued an insane and self-destructive course and they will pay for it. By 2010 there may be only 28 Republicans in the Senate. It could happen, through retirements and defeats and strong Democratic recruitment.

For the first time in history the Democrats are outraising the Republicans. I think we are going to win 6-11 Senate seats next year and another 5-10 in 2010. It is not at all out of the question. And that is also part of the strategy of forcing the Republicans to dig their own grave.

by BooMan on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 11:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

Fine. You may well be right that the explanation for much of the Dems' recent behavior is fear. Others, including myself, see something more sinister going on.

I think it is good to have both kinds of explanation floating around in the Netroots. I hope that you will not disagree. My view is that attributing sinister motivations to the Dem establishment does more good to the progressive cause than harm, especially since the Green Party seems to be in its death throes, there are no signs of a new "third party" emerging, and no signs, as yet at least, of a noteworthy independent candidate for president. Thus, progressives' bad-mouthing the Dem leadership can be expected to have more of the positive effect of forcing Dems to watch their left flank than the negative effect of making them lose progressive votes.

As for calling the Bush presidency or the Republican Party itself "illegitimate": I think that the Netroots should develop a "radical" discourse, but one which does not have echoes of the old radical Marxist discourse, to counter the "radical" discourse of taday's right. For example, if enough bloggers to the left of Kos called the Republican Party illegitimate, something I do not believe Kos himself does, then it would be harder for the right-wing echo chamber to portray Kos as part of the "loony left".

by Alexander on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 12:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

I don't have any interest in giving a false impression of where I stand on the issues. If I am radical in any area it is foreign policy, where I would rather see Canada try to control central Asia and the Middle East than for us to do try to do it. I'll take their health care and they can have our terrorism threat.

Other than that, I'm not radical at all.

by BooMan on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 01:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

Other than that, I'm not radical at all.

I can see that. I don't think of myself as radical in the traditional sense either, since to me, all that should be expected of a society is what the Scandinavians achieved in the 1960s-70s. My general line of thought in the last few months has been that America has shifted so far toward despotism that politics as usual won't suffice to bring it back again. This is "radical" in a different sense: not that radical measures are required to create a good society, but that a radical approach is required simply to get us back to where we once were.

But I do not expect you to agree with me about that. I do however think it is important that a "debate" go on in the Netroots between people like Arthur Silber who believe that the political system in its current form is no longer capable of being repaired (and when you accept premises like, "The Republican Party is legitimate", you assume that it can be repaired) and people with positions such as your own.

Such a debate certainly isn't going to go on in the pages of the New York Times or on the Charlie Rose show.

by Alexander on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 03:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

I don't know what you mean by 'legitimate'. It's some kind of abstraction. You can't define away the GOP. They have to be voted out of office. That is my problem with pie-in-the-sky solutions, like somehow the GOP funded Green Party is going to become the savior of the world. You don't beat back fascists by calling them names. You take out billy clubs and beat them down. Or you decimate them at the polling place.

The structural problems in American politics are well known and rightly disliked, but they've been with us for a long-time. The specific problems we have right now are generated by a group of thugs, perverts, pedophiles, warmongers, and thieves that have taking over one of the two 'legitimate' parties and the White House.

They must be beaten with the only tool available to beat them.

by BooMan on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 01:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

You don't beat back fascists by calling them names.

You fight on all fronts, including the ideological/rhetorical. As I said, one reason that the right wing has been successful at marginalizing progressive thought is by delegitimizing the very notion of liberalism.

You say the GOP needs to be voted out of office. That is correct, but it is not enough. The right wing did a lot of the work creating the ideology that it subsequently used to hoodwink the American people during the Carter years, while they were out of office.

by Alexander on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 02:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

Now that the Republicans are in general disfavor, we must seize the opportunity and do to them what the regressives did to us in the 1980s, turning "liberal" into a dirty word. We must not simply rely on the Republicans becoming unpopular so that we can get more votes, but also create new ideological formulations and arguments to make "conservative" ideology unappealing to the mainstream American in every possible way.

The right wing did it in the 1970s and 80s with their think tanks, making "liberal" mean soft on crime and defense, weak on morals, and indulgent of welfare queens, and making "free" mean little more than having consumer choice. We don't have think tanks, because think tanks require wealthy donors. So who else is going to do this but bloggers?

by Alexander on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 12:31:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This has been a problem since Clinton (none / 0)

The argument appears to make no sense to you because the Republicans have framed what is legitimate. I am saying that we should be doing the framing.

I am sure that to many Royalists, the argument that the English king's rule over the American colonies was illegitimate would have made no sense, either.

by Alexander on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 11:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 1)

i love greenwald's writing and refer to him on civil liberties issues, among other things.
it seems to me that some liberal bloggers have a bit of access to the political democratis elites, but frankly like the gays learned in the early days of the clinton adminstration, access doesn't guarantee influence, at all. clinton came around to the gay community and got millions blah blah when running for office and then when they went to make the see no evil hear no evil dont ask dont tell policy, we were shunted aside and very very disappointed.
i'm not surprised that the democrats have caved in on a number of important issues either.
we really need a third party.

by michael72 on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 03:03:25 PM EST

Re: FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots (none / 0)

Um, some of us saw this coming, and were hopping mad at the time; not to mention a little ticked off at the netroot power centers when they got back online, so to speak. In retrospect, the ire at the netroot powers was, indeed, mostly unfounded. Whatever they did, or didn't, do was absolutely unintentional and things did unravel very fast. It would have been interesting to see what scream in unison from you all, with all the Democratic candidates and media there, could have accomplished.

by bmaz on Tue Sep 4th, 2007 at 03:56:17 PM EST

Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness (none / 0)

This fall they will be gearing up for this.
http://www.cable360.net/ct/data/22764.html

Wireless broadband for the masses they will bill it as although the capacity really means instant surveillance from anywhere at anytime, all without the hinderance of wires. They used to have to a get a court order to "tap" a phone but now "phone" means some signal which can be just pulled out of the air.

by Lasthorseman (Lasthorseman@comcast.net) on Wed Sep 5th, 2007 at 07:26:20 AM EST

FISA: Don't Blame the Netroots | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the CIA's War on Terror:

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile