Office of the Independent Blogger

In My Life, Bill Clinton describes FEMA as an organization that no one thinks about until a disaster strikes, and while no one ever votes on the basis of a candidate’s disaster-relief program it should still be a primary consideration on the agenda of elected officials because people die when relief is not thought-through. Barack Obama criticized John McCain today, arguing that he would leave cities underfunded and unprepared for dealing with disasters. McCain shot back that Obama is contributing to the problem by refusing to fast-track legislation that would help people. Meanwhile, human beings are suffering all over the Midwest.

I know that many of my fellow liberals are furious with the House for compromising with George W. Bush on domestic spying, but I think the solution they came across is fair and sensible.

The House on Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government’s terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.

The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government’s responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.

“This bill, though imperfect, protects both,” said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the House intelligence committee.

President Bush praised the bill Friday. “It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies’ plans for new attacks,” he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

The House’s passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

I am not sure what, exactly, merits objection in this case. This is good for the Congress, the President and the people.

Barack Obama officially announced his decision to opt-out of the public finance system for Presidential campaigns this morning, and I am deeply disillusioned by this decision. But before I comment on the decision itself, I want to comment on the manner in which it was announced to the public: not via press release, or in a speech, but in a video email. I can not begin to describe how angry that makes me. Listen, it is not proper etiquette to break up with some via text message and it is not acceptable to fire people over the phone, so it is most certainly not acceptable for a Presidential candidate to announce something such as this via email and then refuse to speak to the press about it.

Obama has previously indicated his support for public financing, once writing that he would work vigorously with the Republican candidate to make sure they can both work within that framework; he has spoken about it in his speeches, and has referred to himself recently as an “unabashed” supporter of campaign finance reform; he even put “Yes” down on paper when surveyed on this question by a political organization early in his campaign for President. Of course, Harry Truman once said that if a man’s word is no good, it isn’t made better on paper, and that appears to be the case here.

So, what happened that made Obama change his mind? Simple: he wants the opportunity to outspend John McCain by a ridiculous total, as he thinks it will make him President of the United States and Obama seems to believe that the ends will justify the means. The Presidency takes its toll on everyone who seeks it and especially those who obtain it, and Obama is willing to play this game the hard way for the sake of becoming President. This is not “hope” or “reform” but it is “change” — it’s a price change that he hopes we can all believe in. Well I don’t, and I think this is absolutely shameful. If I were McCain I’d hammer him as a fraud all year long. This is the same guy who has an ex-Friends of Barack club going because he is disloyal to friends, and he doesn’t stand true to his own stated principles, either.

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a truce over Gaza. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it does not appear to have anyone’s full committment to it.

I hope it will succeed. I believe there will be quiet in (Israel’s) south,” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in a speech to philanthropists. But he also said he instructed his military “to prepare for any operation, short or long, that might be necessary” if the truce breaks down.

In Gaza, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said the truce would “ease the lives of Gazans,” but success or failure was in Israel’s hands. “The calm is going to bring stability to Israel if they commit themselves to it,” he said.

I do not know whether or not this truce will hold, but until these leaders can trust one another in public and in private we will continue to see these agreements fall apart. Maybe that cycle will be broken with this agreement, but I doubt it.

I received the following email from a good friend and Iowan this morning:

My family is ok, but many, many people here have not been so lucky. Lots of people were told when they bought their homes that there was no need for flood insurance because the water never gets this high. Levees are breaking, roads are closed, towns and hospitals are cut off. It’s unbelievable.

The President of the United States had this to say:

President Bush says he will inspect flood damage in Iowa on Thursday. The president said that an existing federal disaster relief fund has enough in it to cover the recent severe Midwest flooding. He also said he will work with Congress on emergency legislation to help replenish the fund to be ready for possible additional natural disasters. Bush was briefed on the flooding Tuesday by federal officials involved in the relief effort.

The president told reporters (in his words), “We’re concerned about people who lost their homes, who lost their businesses. We’re in constant contact with people on the ground.”

I think it is tragic that there are people who have lost everything because they took it for granted that floodwaters never get as high as they have gotten this week, and I believe that the American Government has a duty to assist these families and businesses in paying for their homes or else we are going to leave thousands of people in a state of suffering, and that is simply unacceptable. We might as well not have a government if Washington doesn’t believe that “promoting the general welfare” involves aiding all those people in Iowa.

My heart is with Iowa tonight, as thirty six thousand Iowans are homeless after the floods there this weekend. You never want people to lose their homes and lives, and when it happens in such a short period of time it just emphasizes how unpredictable life can be.

Happy Father’s Day, dear readers!
Not so happy “Nuclear ring reportedly had weapon design” day.

Just listen to what that monster said today about the ongoing “election” in his country.

The Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, sounding ever more pugnacious, said Saturday that he was prepared to go to war if he lost a runoff election to the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai on June 27. Speaking at the burial of a former army general, Mr. Mugabe, who at 84 has held power for 28 years, was quoted by Reuters as saying, “These pathetic puppets taking over our country? Let’s see. That’s not going to happen.”

Mr. Mugabe finished second to Mr. Tsvangirai in balloting on March 29, but the margin was not enough to avoid a runoff. Mr. Mugabe portrays his challenger as a bootlicker to the British, Zimbabwe’s colonial masters. And he seems determined to deter Mr. Tsvangirai from publicly responding to his invectives and threats.

On Saturday morning, the opposition leader was detained by the national police yet again as he tried to campaign, this time at a roadblock at the central town of Shurugwi. Mr. Tsvangirai, who was released after a few hours, has been repeatedly stopped by authorities in the past week. His party, the Movement for Democratic Change, issued a statement calling the detentions part of a pattern of “harassment and intimidation.”

He’ll deserve whatever he gets from the voters and the opposition, and I just hope that justice can be served in this situation. It has gone on far too long and if it ends with Mugabe in power then the international community has failed yet again to promote and protect democracy and human rights.

This LA Times article refers to the NRA as a “victim of its own success” and argues that its political clout is on the decline, but I wouldn’t be so sure. Coupled with Obama’s crack about “bitter” voters, his votes will be beneficial to pro-gun Republicans in the fall, and they will be especially useful for fundraising purposes. In that capacity they will be most useful to McCain, and I am always hesitant to declare that one of the most important organizations of recent times is in decline. Just like I’m not sure that Roy Oswalt is done, even if he is having a bad year.

More interesting might be this article about whether or not McCain and Obama are “serious” about global warming:

Late in the afternoon of June 5, the Senate was debating the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which is to say the Senate chamber was almost empty, and the strongest global-warming bill ever to move in Congress was almost dead. Both sides were trying to whip the vote for a make-or-break procedural motion while the bill’s leading opponent, James “Global Warming Is a Hoax” Inhofe, was rasping out a floor speech full of arguments for inaction. Across the aisle, the bill’s floor manager, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., shuffled papers at her desk, doing her best to ignore Inhofe.

That’s when Boxer’s chief of staff hurried over and whispered in her ear. Boxer ducked into the cloakroom, picked up a phone, and had a quick talk with Sen. Barack Obama. When Boxer returned to the floor, she announced that Obama would enter a statement saying that “if he were able to be present,” he would be voting in support of the bill. For those who have been waiting anxiously for Washington to take action on the climate crisis, this is what passes for presidential leadership these days: a candidate phoning it in on the most important global-warming vote of the year.

How disgusting is that? McCain is “change you deserve,” and Obama is “change you can believe in.” I am “an appalled citizen.”

Buried in this article about McCain asking that the public treat his wife and Obama’s “with respect” is the news that Obama’s campaign rejected McCain’s town-hall proposals.

McCain has called for 10 unmoderated town hall meetings between now and August. The Obama campaign, however, rejected the proposal. McCain’s campaign recently sent a letter to the Obama campaign urging the debates after receiving invitations by the Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson presidential libraries to hold joint town hall meetings.

In a response to the letter Friday, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate offered to meet McCain at five joint appearances between “now and Election Day.” The appearances would include three traditional debates, “plus a joint town hall on the economy in July and an in-depth debate on foreign policy in August.”

This is what “change we can believe in” looks like, right? Let’s get this situation straight: Obama is afraid of stumbling in a face-to-face with McCain and wants to exploit his financial advantage in the coming months, so he won’t meet McCain in unmoderated settings to debate the issues at length without any nonsense from journalists involved simply because he doesn’t want to give him any free air-time or gaffe. This makes sense, and is a perfectly fine strategy if you are indeed just another politician, but Barack Obama is supposed to be the Messiah, he’s supposed to be what George McGovern dreamed of being, yet he won’t buck traditional politics for political reasons. “Change we can believe in.” Right.

Tim Russert died today of a heart attack. I’d just like to record my sorrow over this, as he was a fine journalist and moderator.

The Supreme Court ruled today that our detainees at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights, and can challenge their detentions in American courts if they are not charged with a crime. I worry very much that we will have trouble detaining some prisoners who very much deserve to be detained for the rest of their lives as a result of this ruling, but ultimately it is an easy decision: the American government does not have the right to detain anyone indefinitely without charging them with a single crime. President Bush said that he will stand by the ruling, and I hope that he does, but the hard decision does not come with the ruling: it comes with the enforcement. I believe that it would be for the best if the legislature and the executive could get together to pass legislation that would make sure terrorists aren’t let out into the open because of the traditional, stringent burden of proof. By all means, we should be able to give evidence that a man has committed grave crimes before we incarcerate them for the rest of their Earthly existence, but the proof shouldn’t have to be as air-tight as your typical federal case, as these are people captured on the battlefield and typical evidence-gathering methods are not suited for such cases.

More from Fox news: during a segment, they captioned Michelle Obama as Obama’s “baby momma” today. Want to know what the general election is going to look like? That’s it. Everyone likes to compare this election to 1968, or 1960, or 1992, but it looks like it’s going to be 1988 all over again. Race and patriotism.

Fox News seriously asked if Barack Obama fist-bumping his wife was a terrorist fist-jab. I’ve never been more disillusioned with the state of our media.

For people interested in how history will chronicle George W. Bush’s life, today might be a day credited as the beginning of a public transformation of the President from no-regrets warrior to a man who regrets his rhetoric and the perceptions people have of him around the world. I think the ascension of John McCain to “Republican Party electoral leader” is the first event to illustrate to Bush that his time is nearing an end, and it appears that he’s got his legacy in mind now as his term winds down and he gets to work on diplomatic matters with Iran and Palestine. It’s interesting how much his personal tone has softened of late, and how reflective he has been. I just wonder if he ever thinks the war was a mistake.