Immunity...Schmunity

While Bush & company try to scare us into supporting an immunity that benefits no one else but themselves, the telecoms flex their considerable monetary muscles by twisting Congressional arms. According to Opensecrets.org, the telecom/electronics lobby ranks #4 w/$2 billion+ spent since 1998. That’s a heckuva lotta of campaign contributions, free dinners and scotches. My guess it that that a majority of this went to Bush, Boehner, DeLay, “Duke”, Blunt, Stevens, Doolittle, Lewis et al.

No small wonder the Republican Representatives walked en masse yesterday. They had been already paid by the telecoms for their day's work to ignore their sworn duty to serve the American people. Inquiring minds want to know how many Dems voting for this bill also received some sort of past or renewed "support" from the telecom lobby.

Glenn Greenwald examines this fandango's latest developments here. In it he snags the following killer Mike McConnell quote from NPR this morning:

"We can't do this mission without their help," he said."Currently there is no retroactive liability protection for them. They're being sued for billions of dollars."

Yes, McConnell cannot "do this mission without their help." But the telecoms also cannot fail to cooperate in any lawful information gathering activity. Glenn fells this strawiest of the eavesdropping straw man arguments:

The claim that telecoms will cease to cooperate without retroactive immunity is deeply dishonest on multiple levels, but the dishonesty is most easily understood when one realizes that, under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don't have the option to "refuse." Without amnesty, telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which we should want. But there is no risk that they will refuse requests to cooperate with legal surveillance, particularly since they are legally obligated to cooperate in those circumstances. The claim the telecoms will cease to cooperate with surveillance requests is pure fear-mongering, and is purely dishonest.

If the telecoms committed no wrongdoing, what are they so worried about? After all, the telecoms can afford the very best lawyers. And once one suit is dismissed, the rest will soon follow. Its the complete lack of debate over whether any law has been broken that is conspicuous by its absence. (This from an administration still arguing that water boarding is not torture!)

This urgent need for retroactive immunity stems from the fact that all involved in warrantless wiretapping know that their crimes are completely indefensible. If they succeed in giving the telecoms retroactive immunity, the Bush Administration also immunizes themselves from any related prosecution. That is more important to Bush & Co. than protecting the asses of their generous telecommunications industry campaign contributors or, for that matter, the American people.

That is a talking point worthy of wider dissemination.

Meanwhile the clock keeps a tickin' on Bush's shot at scoring hisself sum immunities.

-AF

I'm More or Less Back...

I've come to accept the Super Bowl loss of my beloved New England Patriots. Yes, I'm aware I take this shit too personally. But as one who suffered through the lean years, not to mention the aluminum benches of Schaefer Stadium (Anyone else remember "Shaefer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one!" or or the much later "Pop! Pop! Sitting pretty. All together in Schaefer City!"?), and personally attended the Patriots' second Super Bowl loss, I reserve and retain the right to take my team's losses to heart. After all, football is one of my few true concessions to American popular culture. (I spend the rest of my life snug and smug with the knowledge that my counterculture/underground/indie-cred coffers are overflowing).

Truth is that any other year I'd be excited that my adopted hometown's team, The New York Football Giants, won. I'd be excited if any team finally shut up Bob Kuechenberg and the rest of the '72 Dolphins once and for all. C'est la guerre.

Three things fortify me in the face of such a disastrous end to an historic football season:

1. Former All-World Pats OLB Andre Tippett was finally and deservedly elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Tippett was an extraordinary player overshadowed by the play of NYG's Lawrence Taylor. In the 1984 & 1985 seasons he totaled a whopping 35 sacks -- the highest two season tally by a linebacker ever.
2. Pitchers and catchers have reported. Go Sox!
3. Come July, football will return giving meaning to our otherwise empty lives.

I'll refrain from complaining too much about how the weather here in the NE has largely blotted out the sun and exacerbated the worst symptoms of my chronic disease. Instead I'll re-concentrate my efforts on witty, acerbic, pithy and off-the-wall observations of the world at large. Or something like that.

-AF

Specter Knows Even Less About Football Than He Does About The Constitution

Hard to believe I know. It's strange that Sen. "Snarlin'" Arlen Specter didn't voice his concern about this when it happened last September. It's a transparent bid for publicity. It's a text book case of Republican misdirection. Personally, I think the senior Senator from Pennsylvania is still pissed that the Patriots beat the Eagles three years ago.

Specter's clearly lost his last remaining marble. In today's NY Times, the delusional Republican Senator (Is there any other kind?) claims:

“The N.F.L. has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It’s analogous to the C.I.A. destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed.”

Are you fucking kidding me? Snarlin' Arlen has his panties in a bunch over this when he's actively enabled the worst President in American History to mangle our Constitution in a power grab so bold that it would give Stalin a chubby?

Get a grip, Senator. Get a grip.

The NFL rules were somewhat vague (check out the SportsProf's take) but the intent was clear. Bill Belichick attempted to exploit that gray area and got popped for it. Subsequently, the NFL issued a major clarification of this rule when Belichick's & the Pats' punishment docking them a 1st round pick & $750000 was announced.

Not wanting any more negative attention in this year of Pacman & Michael Vick, the NFL did their best to sweep "Spygate" under the rug ASAP. The league was extremely bent that someone at 410 Park Ave. leaked a clip to Fox. My sources tell me that the tapes were destroyed at least in part to stop additional leaks and to prevent other teams learning anything from the Patriots' methods.

The lack of specifics as to what exactly went down is precisely the reason for so much residual angst. But you really have to know jack all about the complexity of NFL football to believe that someone on the sidelines could effectively steal another team's signals.

When a coach signals in plays, some are dummy calls, some change weekly and some may never be seen again. For this to work during a game, taped signals would have to be transmitted to a crew specifically assembled to interpret the signals. Once the code was broken, the code would have to be explained to spotters with binoculars trained on the opponent’s sideline. These spotters would have about 10 seconds to translate the opponent's signal and alert their sideline for it to be of any use to their team. If the opponent then changes the play at the line of scrimmage, it's all for naught.

The Patriots were certainly recording how long it took each opponent to get their defensive sub packages on and off the field according to game clock, down & distance and score. This explains the Pats' productive penchant for suddenly going to a hurry-up offense in a situation that wouldn't obviously call for such haste.

The Patriots aren't the only team that has ever done this. Jimmy Johnson has freely admitted to doing it during the Cowboys' '90s Super Bowl run. The Pats weren't even the only team do it last year. Regardless, it was a violation of NFL rules and the Patriots were severely punished...but not exactly for "stealing signs."

-AF

**Update: Sports Illustrated's Peter King rips Specter and offers his insights on the Phoenix circus.

***Update #2 -- In his annual Super Bowl press conference NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated:

I’m not sure that there’s a coach in the league that doesn’t expect that their signals are being intercepted in some way by opposing teams and that’s why they go to the great lengths. I think it was Coach Parcells that I heard earlier this season who said “Any coach who doesn’t expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.” It’s pretty simple but I think to the large extent teams understand that’s a risk and they have prepared for that.

**Disclaimer: I am a life-long New England Patriots fan. My ass is still callused from sitting on those aluminum Schaeffer Stadium benches all those years ago. This does not prevent me from being critical of the Patriots or objective on this subject.

The Ultimate Republican Playbook or The Great Republican Perpetual Power Ploy

Deleted to be reconstituted.

Bush To Pardon Telecoms?

Crooks and Liars links to NPR's Daniel Schorr who predicts Bush will pardon telecoms for their complicity in the President's illegal wiretap programs. Since Congress seems to have dug their heels in regarding the Preznit's request for retroactive immunity, some sort of blanket Presidential pardon seems logical. The big question I have is can a criminal President grant pardons to his co-conspirators? If so, you can bet that loophole will soon be closed albeit after the fact. It's not like the Presidential pardon wasn't controversial enough as it now stands.

I am curious as to exactly when this cozy relationship between the Bush Administration and the telecom industry began. Bush did signal that he was ready to throw down with big business and telcoms before he was sworn in.

AF

Edwards Is O-U-T

The NY Times' version here. Just because this is understandable and expected doesn't make it any less disappointing. Edwards ran an honorable campaign on a platform more conducive to positive "change" than any other Democrat. Obama's and Hillary's selective cannibalization of certain Edwards planks speaks volumes.

I'd be a helluva lot more comfortable with either candidate if they showed a commitment to end the war now.

Let's be honest. Edwards never had much of a chance. In this MSM as kingmaker era, voters don't drive the selection process the media does. Less people are watching, less people are reading and less qualified are reporting with fewer available resources. Under these circumstances you either get hungry or lazy. You stick to facts or you choose a narrative that sells. It's a clear-cut path the press has chosen. And they've proved they will ride a sexy story to the end of the trail regardless of whether it's true or not.

Call me crazy (true dat may be tho' my meds are working exceptionally well today), but consider how the press skinned Al Gore alive when he ran for President. These pretend Puritans labeled (and libeled) the future Nobel Peace Prize winner a liar because he refused to rip his boss, Bill Clinton, over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The MSM found Gore boring too. So they created a fascinating personality for him: Liar. Our journos worked that meme like a starving cur going at a drumstick.

In direct contrast were the glowing reports on George W. Bush's folksy charm and powerful political family. A bedazzled press corps' deference quickly swelled to misplaced hero worship. (I cringe every time I accidentally see Chris Matthews still getting all a quiver with his man-sized man-crush on lil' Georgie). If you think this love fest did not contributed to any fourth estate footdragging in exposing the worst US President ever, you are straight up tripping your ass off. Despite the possibilities, catching the press with their pants down is not considered a sexy story -- at least not by the press.

I admire John Edwards for fighting the good fight. It's unfortunate that, according to the press, the sexy story was not the millionaire son of mill worker and failed VP candidate fighting poverty versus anyone else. (They gave more column inches and air time to his fucking hair than his positions on the issues !) Nope, it's charismatic, handsome and young African-American junior Senator versus controversial, former First Lady New York Senator. Case closed. Bye bye John. Thanks for playing. We have no parting gifts for you. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.

I hope this experience doesn't discourage John Edwards from continuing in public service. He has much to offer yet.

AF

Imbroglio In Islamabad

Upon learning of Keith Ryan's "suicide" in Islamabad on Monday, I thought there maybe more here than meets the eye. Today's Boston Globe notes "Questions Raised in Death of US Official in Pakistan:"

United States officials tonight are attempting to transport the body of diplomat Keith Ryan from Islamabad to the U.S. for an autopsy, amid unconfirmed -- and contradictory -- news media reports in Pakistan that he died in a murder rather than a suicide.

The son of esteemed Boston Globe sports writer Bob Ryan, Keith Ryan was a diplomat working for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Dept. of Homeland Security umbrella.

I'm sure it matters little to his kin how Ryan died. This is would be a devastating loss for any family. Ryan left a wife of 12 years and 8-year-old triplets. My heart goes out to them.

AF

SOTU IGNORU

I confess that I completely ignored George Bush's final State of the Union Address. I rarely watch it but I almost always read it. This year I decided to give it a pass.




The problem is that under lil' George it's become such a half-baked panoply of half-truths, lies and wishful thinking that I can't even make a decent drinking game out of it. If I depended on Bush to tell the truth or make sense to do a shot, I'd die thirsty. Conversely, if I did a shot every time Bush re-wrote history or told a whopper, I'd drink myself blind by 9:30PM EST.

Since I seem incapable of dealing with a George W. Bush SOTU sober and since a George W. Bush SOTU kills my buzz, this year I left Georgie out of the process. I'm glad I did.

AF

Keith Ryan RIP

Keith Ryan was found dead in Islamabad, Pakistan yesterday. He was doing a thankless job in an unfriendly place. I did not know Keith. I also did not know his father, Bob Ryan, the dean of Boston sports writers. However, I grew up in Boston. I've read Bob Ryan's Boston Globe columns since I started reading the newspaper. I still read them online almost every day. I look forward to his frequent appearances on ESPN's The Sports Reporters. I'm a fan. It may sound queer (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word) but I consider Bob part of my imaginary extended family.

My deepest sympathies to the Ryan family for their loss.

AF

Krugman: Lessons of 1992

Paul Krugman delivers a de rigueur whip-smart Op-Ed in todays NY Times:

A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

Not that Obama is Bill or vice versa but there are striking similarities between then and now. Specific forces and conditions are to blame. We ignore these parallels at our peril. More Krugman:

Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

Krugman summarizes the pitfalls, land mines and full-frontal assaults targeted at Bill Clinton. He makes a point that is so obvious, so true but has thus far gone unsaid:

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves.

Krugman hits the bulls-eye. Dems are so abundantly assured that there's no way a Democrat will fail to win the White House, that scant thought has gone into what will happen if that does indeed happen. That is folly.

No matter whom we nominate, folks, if a Democrat is elected, we will witness a kind of Republican-orchestrated vitriol that will make the Bill Clinton-era partisan attacks look like Sunday school. The GOP and their surrogate legions have employed these tactics with spectacular success. They have it down to a science. Democrats have a proven inability to mount an effective defense against this Republican offense. Nor do they possess an offense potent enough to disarm the GOP defense. And that's just the way the neo-cons, retro-cons, Jesu-cons, ex-cons and future-cons like it.

With your opponents consistently, brazenly put party above country, it shouldn't come as any shock that we've had a Republican President for all but 12 out of the last 40 years. Read Krugman's piece in it's entirety here.

-AF