Buddhists stole my clarinet... and I'm still as mad as Hell about it! How did a small-town boy from the Midwest come to such an end? And what's he doing in Rhode Island by way of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York? Well, first of all, it's not the end YET! Come back regularly to find out. (Plant your "flag" at the bottom of the page, and leave a comment. Claim a piece of Rhode Island!) My final epitaph? "I've calmed down now."

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Hilly Kristal, a Rock Midwife, Is Dead at 75

Note from Greetings: I had worked with Hilly (as an agent for bands) and found him to be one of the folks who cared about the music and the people, more than the money. He'll be missed.

By BEN SISARIO, NY Times
Published: August 29, 2007


Hilly Kristal, who founded CBGB, the Bowery bar that became the cradle of punk and art-rock in New York in the 1970s and served as the inspiration for musician-friendly rock dives throughout the world, died in Manhattan on Tuesday. He was 75.

His son, Mark Dana Kristal, told The Associated Press that the cause was complications from lung cancer.

From its opening in late 1973, when Mr. Kristal, a lover of acoustic music, gave the club its name, an abbreviation of the kinds of music he originally intended to feature there — country, bluegrass and blues — until a dispute with its landlord forced the club to close last October, CBGB presented thousands of bands within its eternally crumbling, flyer-encrusted walls.

Most famously, it served as the incubator for the diverse underground scene of New York in the 1970s and early ’80s, with acts like the Ramones, Patti Smith, Blondie, Television, Talking Heads and Sonic Youth playing some of their earliest and most important concerts there, at a time when there were few outlets in the city for innovative rock music.


“There was no real venue in 1973 for people like us,” Ms. Smith said today. “We didn’t fit into the cabarets or the folk clubs. Hilly wanted the people that nobody else wanted. He wanted us.”
Besides his son, Mr. Kristal is survived by a daughter, Lisa Kristal Burgman, and two grandchildren.

Music: Fans of a Groundbreaking Club Mourn and Then Move On (October 17, 2006)
CBGB Brings Down the Curtain With Nostalgia and One Last Night of Rock (October 16, 2006)
Op-Ed Contributor: Rock n Roll High School (October 14, 2006)
Readers’ Opinions
Share Your Thoughts
Discuss Hilly Kristal, the founder of CBGB, on the City Room blog.
Post a Comment
Times Topics: Hilly Kristal
From the Archive (PDF’s)
CBGB Club Is Hub for Bands Playing Underground Rock (Jan. 24, 1976)
Talking Heads: Cool in Glare of Hot Rock (March 24, 1976)
Teenage Runaways Play to Fantasites (Aug. 4, 1976)
Damned, British Punk-Rock Group (April 9, 1977)
A New Life for the Bowery (April 15, 1977)
B-52's, Rock Band From Georgia (June 3, 1978)

Monday, August 27, 2007

Presidential Advance Menu for Quelling Dissent and Protests

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf

is the site to see the President's Manual for advance staff to prevent free speech at his appearances. Pardon me, but... isn't that why he "SAYS" we're in Iraq fighting? To give them freedom of speech? Let's hope we can have some, too.


Replace President with Maliki/Shia Government of Iraq and demonstrators with Sunni Muslims in Iraq, and see if that's what we're fighting for over there.


Gonzalez Resigns... But During a Vacation Period. Step up Congress! And come back to work now!

So, Gonzalez resigned during Congress' vacation period. Weren't there a lot of controversial vacation appointments under Bush? If Bush appoints someone now, Congress gets no say in it...that is, unless they have the ambition and commitment to cut their vacations short, and the fortitude to hold an actual hearing, rather than a rubber-stamp session. I'm talking to Republicans AND Democrats...let's see what you're made of.

To paraphrase the words of George Bush... "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... well....(don't ) get fooled again."

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Message From John

Monday, August 20, 2007

This Modern World (from Salon), In 1969, a group of radicals hatched a secret plan...

salon.comThis Modern World By Tom Tomorrow


salon.com

The Good War, Still to Be Won

From the NY Times...
We will never know just how much better the fight in Afghanistan might be going if it had been managed more competently over the past six years.
to read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20mon1.html?th&emc=th

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Save John From Cincinnati website

http://www.savejohnfromcincinnati.net/
UPDATE 8/17/2007 - 145 PostcardsYour response has been overwhelming so far. Due to your donations over 145 individually stamped postcards will be sent to HBO to Save John. These can be sent out as early as Wednesday or we can wait to send them all at once during what is now being called DumpOut Weekend Friday August 31- Tuesday Sept 4. You decide. Email your opinion.

CONTACT INFO
If you send your own mailer here are addresses to mail to:For letters to:
Mr. David Milch
Creator, "John From Cincinnati"
c/o Creative Artists Agency, LLC
2000 Avenue of the StarsLos Angeles, CA 90067

...and for letters to support season 2 of JFC:
Mr. Richard Plepler
Co-President
Mr. Michael Lombardo
President of Programming
HBO Series,
"John From Cincinnati"
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
Home Box Office
1100 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6712

Numbers to Call:HBO Consumer Affairs: 212-512-1000
Online Feedback:http://www.hbo.com/apps/submitinfo/contactus/submit.do
Red Board Productions - Milch's Production Company
Telephone and fax
Tel: 310 264 4285
Fax:310 264 4286
Address

3000 W Olympic Blvd
Bldg 4
Santa Monica, California 90404USA

Save John From Cincinnati

Here is a link to a fellow who is trying to Save John From Cincinnati
http://boards.hbo.com/thread.jspa?messageID=700715623&#700715623
The blogger (not me) writes:

I'm trying to start a campaign to save this fabulous show, which has the potential to be HBO's own Twin Peaks; a long talked-about cult classic (if only HBO would give it a chance to catch on.)

Anyways, I've decided to send the HBO PTB a postcard with John's Monad symbol written on it (and nothing else) every single day.

If anyone else wants to join me in my quest, you can send the postcards to the following:
HBO Headquarters
1100 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-512-1000
Fax: 212-512-1182

Carolyn Strauss
HBO Entertainment
2500 Broadway, Ste. 400 S
anta Monica, CA 90404

Phone calls can help, too.
HBO Consumer Affairs: 212-512-1000

Also, if anyone knows of any other HBO principals to send them to, please post them. The Save Carnivale campaign also had addresses (not sure if they're still relevant) for HBO's parent company, Time Warner:

Time Warner Addresses (Parent Company of HBO)Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016
212.484.8000

Richard D. ParsonsChairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner
c/o Office of the Corporate SecretaryTime Warner Inc.
One Time Warner CenterNew York, NY 10019-8016

Edward AdlerExecutive
Vice President Corporate Communications
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016

Susan Duffy
Vice President Corporate Communications
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019-8016

Mia CarbonellExecutive
Director Corporate Communications
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner CenterNew York, NY 10019-8016

Please, anyone interested can feel free to post this idea on your JFC blogs and spread the word any way you can (no h/t necessary.)

John From Cincinnati cancelled, David Milch discusses it

Note from Greetings: I was disappointed that John was cancelled. I enjoyed the characters... a great, unusual soap opera. Wonderful dialogue.. fun surprises. Wonderful actors, doing great jobs.

I loved the exploration of spirituality, with a dysfunctional surfing family. I hope HBO sees fit to bring it back.

I enjoyed Deadwood, too, but it's time had run its course. Since John was the last thing I was left watching on HBO, it makes it easy to drop it. I can rent movies.

From TV Blogger - Saturday, August 11, 2007

Milch Discusses 'Johns' Fate and More

David Milch did an interview with Tavis Smiley on Thursday, his first public appearance (to my knowledge) since John From Cincinnati began airing on June 10th.

The interview explores Milch's aspirations for John From Cincinnati and addresses whether he succeeded. Smiley didn't press the issue of a renewal but Milch seems resigned to the fact it won't be back. But contrary to wide spread reports of his exhaustion, he seems ready to move onto another story.

That story being Deadwood though seems very, very unlikely. Milch appears to have lost his interest in capitalism functioning as an organizing principle and vehicle for society -- which is in essence what Deadwood was about. Here's a recap:Milch on the show's premise and thematic content...

"I was interested in faith as a regenerative and reorganizing principle for the community," but went onto to do Deadwood."This is a show in which I tried - I wanted to come back to the original idea. If God were trying to make himself known with a particular urgency because the apocalypse is coming, and if the difficulty was not with his faculty of communication but rather with our capacity to understand."The idea that the universe is a solid system but a series of waves. And that man is not an individual creature, but that his essence is carried from seeming individual to seeming individual is available to surfers if they aren't loaded and selfish or if they don't become addicted to the behavior of surfing itself. Doesn't often happen."Milch on the show's success in doing so...

Well, there is a very cogent and articulate school of thought which says I didn't bring it down. (Laughter) And in fact, that question - the artist is one of God's surrogates, I believe. And what I was just saying about God trying to make himself understood, I believe is the artists' challenge, as well. I can make myself understood at the sacrifice of the truth.Milch on the story's evolution...

"Oh, no, I know where "John From Cincinnati" would go if they're going to keep doing the show. What the fate of the show is going to be is still up in the air, and I'm going to keep working and in some ways, I think all stories are the same story.

So -"Which means that if God is anywhere, he's everywhere, and it's my task - I said to a priest, as he was dying, “I'm grateful to have lived long enough to be able to say to you that the shadow in which I always believed I and my characters must move is cast by God's sheltering hand.” So any story can let you do that."

You can listen to audio of interview or read the transcript.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 10, 2007

John From Cincinnati finale

John From Cincinnati has been the best show to come along in quite some time. I hope the finale is not, well... the finale. Hopefully Milch is interested in keeping it going, and more hopefully, HBO knows a great show when it has one. They have in the past. (Greetings)

Updated: 4:54 p.m. ET Aug 8, 2007

NEW YORK - “The end is near,” says John from Cincinnati.


That’s what he’s been saying since the
HBO drama “John From Cincinnati” began, though with scant supporting evidence. John isn’t big on details.

Even so, he’s been proved right. At least, one way. “John From Cincinnati” will conclude its 10-episode run Sunday at 9 p.m. ET. The end for sure is near.

What will the end bring? Maybe some answers about the Yost surfing family and other eccentrics in Imperial Beach, Calif., during a very peculiar few days. (Series stars include Rebecca De Mornay, Bruce Greenwood, Brian Van Holt, Luke Perry, Ed O’Neill, Greyson Fletcher and Austin Nichols as John.)

Maybe there will be an explanation for why, these days, long-ago surfing great Mitch Yost sometimes rises several inches off the ground.


And maybe an accounting for how Mitch’s teenage grandson, Shaun, seemed to breathe life back into a dead pet bird — and how, with Shaun left paralyzed and brain-dead from a surfing accident, the bird was able to restore him to life and full health.

Maybe the end will, at last, shed light on the mysterious stranger known up to now as John — just who he really is and where he’s from (don’t bet on Cincinnati).

John seems to be the cause of all the miraculous, befuddling goings-on. He seems divinely touched, the sort of guy whose savagely inflicted stab wounds healed right away. He also seems to be mentally challenged, or an idiot savant, with his choirboy wholesomeness.

“You’ll know to say something but you won’t know what it means,” an exasperated local presses him. “You want to do something and you’ll do it — but you won’t understand what you did.”

Why should he? As John says with his rote delivery, “Some things I know and some things I don’t.”

Ditto for viewers, who should know better than to count on a tidy resolution when the season (or the series?) meets its imminent end.

‘Deadwood’ hangs tenCo-created by David Milch, “John From Cincinnati” echoes his earlier HBO series, “Deadwood,” a 19th-century Western teeming with elliptical, thorny storytelling and f-word-studded lyricism.

As on “Deadwood,” whose scramble for wealth was framed as a model of America’s, “John” also addresses the profit motive, though in contemporary terms. It asks: Should the pristine passion of surfing (as personified by young Shaun) be corrupted by corporate sponsorships and other moneymaking deals?

“That’s flipping your fins for an audience,” seethes Mitch, who doesn’t want his grandson selling out.

OK. Money is the root of all evil. Fair enough.

But if that’s true, why is the divinely inspired John packing a platinum credit card with no upper limit? “Deadwood” preached the civilizing impact of the free-enterprise system, even on a wild-and-woolly mining town. Why, on “John,” must a similar entrepreneurial spirit be at war with spiritualism?

What’s up with all that mystic mumbo-jumbo? How come Mitch goes up in the air?

Some things I know and some things I don’t. One thing I know: “John From Cincinnati” has been a confounding exercise for me as a viewer. It’s a series too murky and withholding for its own good — or that of many would-be fans.

And yet ... I, for one, have kept returning. However confusing “John” may be (until now, anyway, before the revelation that may or may not come), it compels me to stop scratching my head long enough for a round of applause.

Applause for its originality. For its brass. For the music of its raunchy dialogue (sorry, nothing quotable here).

And, most of all, for its collection of characters. No, they aren’t the equal of those who populated “Deadwood” — not as novel, rich or outrageous. But the people of “John From Cincinnati” share with one another a trait whose pervasiveness has me maddeningly fixated: They, with almost no exception, are quite mad.

It's a mad, mad world“John” has reveled in madness of many stripes and many colors.

There’s Butchie, the drugged-out former surfer king and Shaun’s derelict dad. Cissy, Butchie’s sexy mother, who has swallowed too much LSD and has a hair-trigger temper to show for it.

There’s Dr. Smith, who is thrown for a loop (and abandons his hospital job) after witnessing Shaun’s resurrection. Barry, an epileptic who, along with his seizures, gets visions (including the lottery number that made him a fortune).

There’s Bill, a paranoid retired cop with a delusional streak who talks philosophy with his pet birds.

And there are plenty more in this seaside asylum.

“I wanna go back to normal,” Shaun told his father in a recent episode.

“The hand that you were dealt ain’t going anywhere,” Butchie scoffed. “Or mine ... your gram’s ... gramps’ ... your mom’s. Or anybody else’s.”

Sure, they may be blessed with redemption in the final episode (though, God, I hope not). Or, instead, Butchie might be right: They ain’t going anywhere, least of all within shouting distance of normal.

Some things I know and some things I don’t. I don’t know what “John From Cincinnati” is about. But I do know there’s a madness to its method. Madness — not family or the surfing culture — is what binds these characters, however punishing for them and challenging for me.

Madness is the series’ unifying force, at the core of its convoluted message.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Labels: , , ,

Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?

Note from Greetings: Scary stuff....go to Froomkin's website for the entire article. This is an excerpt. I recommend it anyway, as well as his daily blog for the Washington Post. I know many of you read it. However, I hope the press asks questions THIS time around, and the public discusses it long before we find ourselves involved in a 2nd war.

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.comFriday, August 10, 2007; 1:44 PM
for entire article, go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/10/BL2007081001161.html

At yesterday's press conference, President Bush announced that he had put Iran on notice: "One of the main reasons that I asked [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] that kill Americans in Iraq."

Describing Iran as "a very troubling nation right now," largely because of its nuclear program, Bush warned its leaders that "when we catch you playing a non-constructive role [in Iraq] there will be a price to pay."
White House Watch

E-mail Dan Froomkin: I may publish your e-mail unless you specify "not for publication."

So what price is Bush prepared to exact? Is this saber-rattling a harbinger of war? And perhaps most to the point: What is Vice President Cheney up to?


Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef write for McClatchy Newspapers today that "the president's top aides have been engaged in an intense internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy. . . .

"Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.

"The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations. . . .

"Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that 'the vice president is right where the president is' on Iran policy."

As the McClatchy reporters point out: "The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

"Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence."

for rest of article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/10/BL2007081001161.html

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Tom Tomorrow: Why on earth would Democrats be hostile to such dedicated professional journalists?

This Modern World By Tom Tomorrow

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism

from Glenn Greenwald, Salon Saturday August 4, 2007 11:39 EST

[updated below - updated again (with Sen. Dodd interview) - Update III]

It is staggering, and truly disgusting, that even in August, 2007 -- almost six years removed from the 9/11 attacks and with the Bush presidency cemented as one of the weakest and most despised in American history -- that George W. Bush can "demand" that the Congress jump and re-write legislation at his will, vesting in him still greater surveillance power, by warning them, based solely on his say-so, that if they fail to comply with his demands, the next Terrorist attack will be their fault. And they
jump and scamper and comply (Meteor Blades has the list of the 16 Senate Democrats voting in favor; the House will soon follow).

I just finished a discussion panel with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero which was originally planned to examine his new (superb)
book about the work his organization has done for years in battling the endless expansion of executive power and presidential lawbreaking. But the only issue anyone in the room really wanted to discuss -- including us -- was the outrage unfolding on Capitol Hill. And the anger was almost universally directed where it belongs: at Congressional Democrats, who increasingly bear more and more responsibility for the assaults on our constitutional liberties and unparalleled abuses of government power -- many (probably most) of which, it should always be emphasized, remain concealed rather than disclosed.

Examine virtually every Bush scandal and it increasingly bears the mark not merely of Democratic capitulation, but Democratic participation. In August of 2006, the Supreme Court finally asserted the first real limit on Bush's radical executive power theories in Hamdan, only for Congress, months later, to completely eviscerate those minimal limits -- and then go far beyond -- by enacting the grotesque Military Commissions Act with the support of substantial numbers of Democrats. What began as a covert and illegal Bush interrogation and detention program became the officially sanctioned, bipartisan policy of the United States.

Grave dangers are posed to our basic constitutional safeguards by the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Sam Alito, whose elevation to the Supreme Court Congressional Democrats chose to permit. Vast abuses and criminality in surveillance remain undisclosed, uninvestigated and unimpeded because Congressional Democrats have stood meekly by while the administration refuses to disclose what it has been doing in how it spies on us. And we remain in Iraq, in direct defiance of the will of the vast majority of the country, because the Democratic Beltway establishment lacks both the courage and the desire to compel an end to that war.

And now Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with revealing symbolism, cancel their scheduled appearances this morning at Yearly Kos because George Bush ordered them to remain in Washington in order to re-write and expand FISA -- a law which he has repeatedly refused to allow to be revised for years and which he has openly and proudly violated.

Congressional Democrats know virtually nothing about how the Bush administration has been eavesdropping on our conversations because the administration refused to tell them and they passively accepted this state of affairs.

The intense rush to amend this legislation means that most of them have no idea what they are actually enacting -- even less of an idea than they typically have. But what they know is that George Bush and Fox News and the Beltway establishment have told them that they would be irresponsible and weak and unserious if they failed to comply with George Bush's instructions, and hence, they comply. In the American political landscape, there have been profound changes in public opinion since September of 2001. But in the Beltway, among our political and media establishment, virtually nothing has changed.

I don't have time this morning to dissect the various excesses and dangers of the new FISA amendments, though
Marty Lederman and Steve Benen both do a typically thorough job in that regard. Suffice to say, craven fear, as usual, is the author of this debacle.

There are many mythologies about what are the defining beliefs and motivations of bloggers and their readers and the attendees at Yearly Kos. One of the principal myths is that it is all driven by a familiar and easily defined ideological agenda and/or a partisan attachment to the Democratic Party. That is all false.

The common, defining political principle here -- what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea -- is a fervent and passionate belief in our country's constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable.

With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who -- having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it -- instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

UPDATE: Much of this was undoubtedly the by-product of the Democratic Beltway consultant geniuses who insist that Democrats not resist the President's instructions on terrorism lest they look "weak." They need to look "strong," and they achieve that by giving the President what he wants and thereby generating articles like this one in The Washington Post, the first paragraph of which reports (accurately):

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.In the mind of the moderate Democratic Beltway centrist consultant, that is how Democrats look Strong -- by "bowing to pressure" exerted by one of the weakest and most disliked presidents in modern history. There is nothing like being described as "bowing" and "capitulating" to give an appearance of strength.

And can we please be spared the condescending assurances about how great it is that the law has a six-month sunset provision, since -- in 6 months -- it will be exactly the same Democrats voting on whether to renew these powers and they will be intimidated by exactly the same threats that if they do not renew it and give the President all of the powers he wants, the Terrorists will kill us and it will be all the fault of the Democrats for disobeying President Bush. The cycle is just going to repeat itself 180 days from now. Why would it be different?

UPDATE II: This afternoon I interviewed Sen. Chris Dodd, who more than any other presidential candidate is attempting to make issues of executive power and constitutional encroachments the centerpiece of his campaign. I'll post the entire transcript and some commentary in a few days, but for now here is part of the discussion we had concerning last night's FISA vote in the Senate (Dodd, along with Obama and Clinton, voted against the FISA bill):

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?
CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.
GG: So this wasn't a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?
CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this" . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days -- there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you're out of the country -- not that you're not a citizen, just out of the country [then they can eavesdrop on you] . . . .
But I wish I had a better explanation. Normally after that, we would be in session Monday or Tuesday, around today, people would be talking about it. So I'm a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don't know. . . .
GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?
CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But part of what this comes down to is that too many people in public life are not secure enough in their own beliefs -- feel vulnerable to attacks by people who will attack you -- and feel unwilling or unable to respond to them with clarity and conviction. And if you lack that clarity and conviction, and if you haven't been through this in the past, then you're likely to be a little weaker in the legs.


I also asked Dodd why Democrats repeatedly engage in the same self-destructive behavior -- refusing to take a hard-core principled stance against the administration, and instead capitulating just enough to look like losers, but -- despite the capitulation -- still allowing the vote to be used against them. As always (see e.g., Iraq War Authorization, warrantless eavesdropping, Military Commissions Act), they capitulate in order to prevent the vote from being used against them, even though it ends up being used against them anyway because so many of them vote (with futility) against it, but do so without ever fighting for, explaining or defending their position.

I also asked him why, when they were in the minority, the Democrats were so afraid to filibuster anything, even something as drastic as the Military Commissions Act or the Alito nomination, whereas the Republicans run around filibustering everything they can find and don't care at all about being called "obstructionist." Why are the Republicans so aggressive with using their minority tools to block all Democratic initiatives whereas Democrats failed to filibuster for years?


Dodd, by his own candid admission, has no good explanation for the Democrats' behavior, which repeats itself endlessly. He has no good explanation as to why so many of his Democratic colleagues are so deeply afraid of being attacked by one of the weakest presidents in modern American history.

Although Dodd's convictions about the constitutional issues are impressively authentic and come from a place of real passion, and although he agreed with most of the criticisms voiced regarding the timidity of Congressional Democrats, I found the interview rather dispiriting, to put it mildly. That was not due to Dodd per se, but because it is clear that Beltway Democrats have no real strategy for doing anything differently or even any real awareness that something different is necessary.

UPDATE III: The House has now also voted in favor of the FISA amendments by a
vote of 227-183 (h/t EJ). A total of 41 Democrats voted in favor.

Labels: , , , , ,

Senate Gives in on Wiretapping. 16 Dems Go Along.

From the Daily Kos (Judging by our Democratic Senator's vote, we're not so Blue anymore. But he'll have to account for this vote in the next election, as will the House Democrats who helped to pass the bill.)

by Meteor Blades
Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:00:24 PM PDT

The Senate has surrendered to Mister Bush on domestic spying, yielding ignominiously to the White House’s demands that the unitary executive be given more authority when it seeks to wiretap suspected terrorists without warrants. The vote was 60-28. If passed by the House, the bill would be law for six months. Meanwhile, Congress would use that time to put together a permanent one.

The New York Times notes:

The White House and Congressional Republicans hailed the Senate vote as critical to plugging what they saw as dangerous gaps in the intelligence agencies’ ability to detect terrorist threats.

"I can sleep a little safer tonight," Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who co-sponsored the measure, declared after the Senate vote.

The measure approved by the Senate expires in six months and would have to be re-authorized. The White House’s grudging agreement to make it temporary helped to attract the votes of some moderate Democrats who said they thought it was important for Congress to approve some version of the wiretapping bill before its recess.

The White House and Republican leaders pressed the point throughout the day that a vote against the measure would put the nation at greater risk of attack.


No Republicans voted against the bill.

The following Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Carper (Delaware); Bob Casey (Pennsylvania); Kent Conrad (North Dakota); Dianne Feinstein (California); Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i); Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota); Nancy Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Mark Pryor (Arkansas); Ken Salazar (Colorado); Jim Webb (Virginia).

Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont.

Joe Lieberman voted ...well, you know how he voted.

Labels: , , , , ,