In Immunity We Trust

It takes so long to fashion a personally satisfying essay that I've trashed my last ten or so "efforts." While I've maintained a habit of tracking all sorts of outrageous behavior by the Bush administration, the Democratic (certainly not little "d") Congress and private market decision makers, the story never seems to change: the rich get richer and the poor poorer, while taxpayer money is used to socialize the risk of institutions that have (and will continue to) privatize their profit. See here, or the J.P. Morgan and the Fed-supported bailout of Bear Stearns, the Fed's ridiculous TAF facility used to prop up the remaining investment banks, and the more recent UST-supported "backstop" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So, after months of this same old story, there was finally one act that was so disgraceful I simply had to get it down on virtual paper. A few weeks ago, you may have read about Congress passing a "modernization" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the most profligate act (so far) of this current Congress, the bill included a White House-supported provision that granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted the Bush administration in illegally (though not decreed by a court of law) wiretapping U.S. citizens within the United States. "It could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this president broke the law," Senator Feingold said. He said the measure makes "some improvements" in the program, "but those changes are not nearly enough to justify supporting the bill." "I do not support a result that says the president of the United States, whoever he is, is above the law," said Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy. "This bill makes the federal courts the handmaiden to a cover-up."
You may have even heard numerous Obamatons (TM*) screeching that their messiah betrayed them by supporting the passage of that bill. But, as usual, that's not the whole story.

In fact, prior to the Senate's vote on the full FISA bill, Senator Christopher Dodd proposed an amendment to the bill that removed only the immunity provision. That amendment was voted down 32-66, with 2 senators not voting. Here's how your senator voted:

YEAs ---32
Akaka (D-HI); Baucus (D-MT); Biden (D-DE); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA); Brown (D-OH); Byrd (D-WV); Cantwell (D-WA); Cardin (D-MD); Casey (D-PA); Clinton (D-NY);
Dodd (D-CT); Dorgan (D-ND); Durbin (D-IL); Feingold (D-WI); Harkin (D-IA); Kerry (D-MA); Klobuchar (D-MN); Lautenberg (D-NJ); Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); Menendez (D-NJ);
Murray (D-WA); Obama (D-IL); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV); Sanders (I-VT); Schumer (D-NY); Stabenow (D-MI); Tester (D-MT); Whitehouse (D-RI); Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---66
Alexander (R-TN); Allard (R-CO); Barrasso (R-WY); Bayh (D-IN); Bennett (R-UT); Bond (R-MO); Brownback (R-KS); Bunning (R-KY); Burr (R-NC); Carper (D-DE); Chambliss (R-GA); Coburn (R-OK); Cochran (R-MS); Coleman (R-MN); Collins (R-ME); Conrad (D-ND); Corker (R-TN); Cornyn (R-TX); Craig (R-ID); Crapo (R-ID); DeMint (R-SC); Dole (R-NC);
Domenici (R-NM); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY); Feinstein (D-CA); Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA); Gregg (R-NH); Hagel (R-NE); Hatch (R-UT); Hutchison (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Inouye (D-HI); Isakson (R-GA); Johnson (D-SD); Kohl (D-WI); Kyl (R-AZ); Landrieu (D-LA); Lieberman (ID-CT); Lincoln (D-AR); Lugar (R-IN); Martinez (R-FL); McCaskill (D-MO);
McConnell (R-KY); Mikulski (D-MD); Murkowski (R-AK); Nelson (D-FL); Nelson (D-NE); Pryor (D-AR); Roberts (R-KS); Rockefeller (D-WV); Salazar (D-CO); Sessions (R-AL); Shelby (R-AL); Smith (R-OR); Snowe (R-ME); Specter (R-PA); Stevens (R-AK); Sununu (R-NH); Thune (R-SD); Vitter (R-LA); Voinovich (R-OH); Warner (R-VA); Webb (D-VA); Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Kennedy (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)

In case you missed the point, only 32 of 100 United States Senators voted in favor of allowing court proceedings to continue to determine whether the telcos acted illegally in acquiescing to the Bush administration's request to wiretap domestic communications without a warrant. There was never an argument that the telco's acts (as well as the Bush directive) were legal under the Fourth Amendment or FISA, because those acts clearly were not. As more details on the wiretapping are uncovered, we learn that telcos that refused to indulge the government's illegal demands BEFORE 9/11 were punished through the cancellation of their government contracts and/or the opportunity to bid on future contracts. Instead, the argument (what little there was) was whether the telcos should be granted immunity for breaking the law because the President requested it of them. This proposition was resoundingly answered in the affirmative, albeit by a "nay" vote. Thus, 66 United States Senators implicitly condoned the notion that private actors can violate your constitutional rights with impunity, but without consequence, if instructed to do so by the Executive branch. This votes represents a breathtaking abdication of duty by these Senators to defend the Constitution, and I'm simply flabbergasted that very few citizens have stopped to give it a second thought. Have we as citizens become so lazy and disconnected that we simply don't care about such violations? Has our government become so corrupt that it will allow such violations of its citizenry's basic rights in exchange for a "practical solution" propounded over countless campaign donation dinners?

Interestingly, of the few names I bolded above, there were some surprises. Evan Bayh and Jim Webb, both potential Obama VP candidates, voted with Bush, on baseless grounds. Claire McCaskill, a long-time member of Obama's national campaign team, toed the Bush line as well. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, while both Republicans, were, in my mind, honorable, law and order gentleman. Apparently that's not the case when it comes to telco immunity. And McCain as absent, give me a break, are you planning more vacation than Bush as President or just joining him in a nonchalant trampling of my civil liberties?

Following up on this most traitorous of acts, the Senate met last Saturday to push through housing reform legislation. While the waterfront has generally been covered on this legislation, there are a few exceptions. How about most private merchants being required to report details of each electronic transaction they process to the federal government? Surely you heard about that? Even better, imagine a simple amendment offered by Senator Demint that would prevent the employees of the government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from making political contributions when the funds to pay their salaries may come from government bailout funds? Should such an amendment be allowed to be offered and debated? The answer according to Senator Harry Reid: apparently not.

I'm beginning to think that the next administration, which, along with the congress, I believe is likely to be Democrat-controlled, may be practically no different than the six years of Bush/Republican control from the 2000-2006 election cycles. Continued protection of deviant insiders and a continuing move away from the interests and rights of the average American seems to be the course shaping up for the resurgent Democrats. With homogeneous behavior such as this, why should parties matter any longer? Is the only current goal of our elected representatives simply to be re-elected? If so, why should we oblige when the results, from both sides of the aisle, appear to be equally detrimental to the interests of the country's citizens? Am I disgusted? Indeed.

Danica "Partick" Does it At Last

Almost two years ago, I offered my considered opinion on the ESPN-engendered charade that was Danicamania. Well, Danicamania is back, because she's now a winner, first to cross under the checkered flag at the Indy Japan 300. Here's Partick as a winner, fiercely working her first money shot.

(AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)

While this may not be news to you, or for many perhaps, I have an odd affinity for Danica Partick stories. It's gotten to the point where I can't even spell her name correctly, as you may have noticed (most don't). Seem strange? Let me explain.

Every visit to this website is tracked, and it's done for free through a service called stat counter. The service lets me know who comes here, and how they got here (keywords, search engine, etc.). BFD, right? Well, it also serves as my window to the world wide web. And what have I learned by looking into that window?

Of all the admittedly brilliant essays I've composed, the most popular on the web is my Danica Partick post. Nevermind that my other essays skillfully characterized Bush as a modern-day Richard III, provided piercing insight on The Curse of Rocky Balboa and presciently unveiled our neighbors' phantom wealth. Instead, it was an isolated incident in which I published an unedited piece misspelling Patrick as "Partick" that has brought me my small share of Internet renown. You can imagine my horror. The web, however, smiled at my spelling mistake and has since kept that essay as a consistent first page reference on Google for every person on the planet innocently making the same "Partick" error. For those of us who champion proper spelling, we can be comforted by stat counter's recognition of my essay on amending the Constitution as my second-most read item. And, after much reflection, I've come to appreciate my "Partick" visitors. So, now that my steadiest readers, as well the at marginally dyslexic Partick typers, have come in big numbers, here's my take on her victory:

Certainly having suffered since the halcyon days of Danicamania, Dainca is now primed to be an even bigger star. In 2006, the date of my original post, Dania had over 3600 Google news mentions after finishing eighth the Indy 500, the IRL's top event in the United States. Her recent Indy Japan 300 victory has only garnered 2371 Google mentions for the past week, though the decidedly uncelebrated Sam King is ahead of the herd in suggesting that Danica's critics simply won't be satisfied with one victory every three years. Even Detroit now has Partick defenders. A seemingly female commentator took the brave step of dismissing the Anna Kournikova analogy only moments after Danica's victory, writing "Although it would have been nice for Patrick's first win to have come on home turf in America - and in prime time - there should be no more comparisons to tennis' Anna Kournikova, who built a reputation based on glamour but never won a title, despite coming tantalizingly close several times." Didn't hate on Anna explicitly, but clawed her implicitly-- how very feminine for Steve Herman.

Though I certainly don't aspire to argument with Sam, Freeps or the Stevie Herman, I'm afraid that the more likely truth is that Danica's victory was cleverly timed to correspond with the impending Indy 500. To recap, Partick didn't lead the race for any extended period of time-- the lap leader pitted for fuel with five laps to go, and Danica passed the new leader, Helio Castroneves (yes, the "Dancing with the Stars" guy), with only two laps to go, and only after Castroneves slowed down to conserve fuel and finish in a top position to preserve his spot atop the standings in the nascent IRL season.

After the race, a likely prodded Castroneves quipped "with five laps to go, I was saving fuel,... when Danica passed me, I realized she was the leader. She did a great job, passed me fair and square and that shows you how competitive our series is." Helio rehashed the same quote later, but a bit more "on-message", explaining "In recognition of Danica's talents, she did a good job. She passed me fair and square," Castroneves said. "I didn't have enough fuel to fight with her and I guess it's part of history. She was very competitive."

Patrick has improved her craft over the last few years, finishing seventh last year in the overall IRL standings for 2007. Still, the Indy Japan 300 was a bittersweet victory at best. Imagine a first PGA victory for a well-publicized upstart against Tiger Woods, where Woods, after watching his playing partner hit the green for a tournament-winning birdie attempt, lays up on the 18th to protect his lead for the future prospect of a season title. While the upstart still has to make the short putt, that putt does not make him a hero or provide any honor to his victory.

Viewing the Danica victory in the same context, it seems all too convenient coming in time for the Indy 500. But don't believe me, check ESPN or your local sports newscast on the morning of Memorial Day, and I'll bet you'll be barraged by news of Danica's victory in the Japan 300, as well as numerous glamour shots to induce some hillbillies to buy Axe body spray.

As the video below from The Racing Capital of the World indicates, Partick better keep her heel to the floor if she wants to survive in Indianapolis. Rumor has it that Jessica Vasquez will be out in time to compete in the 500, maybe in the McDonald's car. Told you that bitch was crazy.

Wonder who's she supporting in the upcoming primary? Her party affiliation is irrelevant, as Indiana has open primaries (well, sort of).

I may travel to Indianapolis for the festivities, financing the trip through sales of "Past is Prologue" t-shirts. Be sure to check back later for pictures. To save both of us time, I'll monitor the "Partick" counter and report back after Memorial Day. Until then, you can worry about our lesser problems.