Barack Obama’s Position On FISA Bill Based On Enormous Gamble

Nick Cave and Warren Ellis - The Proposition #1

Okay, so the FISA bill passed. Barack Obama supported it. People have other issues to contend with. It’s time to move on, right?

Well, no, it isn’t. Obama posted an explanation to his position on FISA over a week ago (reprinted here on The Huffington Post). The following excerpt worries me most (emphasis added):

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

My question is simple: what happens if Obama loses? What are the implications of this bill if John McCain “triumphs?” People can point to Obama’s donation numbers, grassroots support, poll results, momentum, etc, all they want, but what happens if, come election day, John McCain wins?

In short, the FISA bill will grant McCain the power to do almost anything he desires with regards to domestic surveillance. Remember what Chris Dodd said about “illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance?” Yeah, well imagine that in the hands of John McCain. Imagine it across every conceivable communication platform — telephone, Internet, GPS units — and the picture begins to look quite grim. Terrifyingly so.

I support Obama. I will continue to support Obama. However, I deeply fear the repercussions of this bill under a McCain administration over the course of four years. I can only guess as to what other liberties Obama will surrender in the upcoming months with the promise of amending past wrongs once elected.

Needless to say, I’m less than comfortable.

Kind intentions aren’t something I typically put much stock in.

[Buy The Proposition OST]

Senate Passes FISA Bill, Satan Does The Charleston

As an update to this morning’s entry, I’m saddened to report the Senate passed the FISA Bill.

Taken from Salon:

Prior to final approval, the Senate, in the morning, rejected three separate amendments which would have improved the bill but which, the White House threatened, would have prompted a veto.

I’m also saddened to report that Obama voted “yes.”

Hello, disillusionment.

Congressman Of The Hour: Senator Christopher Dodd vs The FISA Bill Of Doom

Political officials. You elect them. Sometimes their efforts are commendable. This series documents such efforts.

Shearwater - The Snow Leopard

Every four years I wait for the end of the world.

Between the months of July and November I set my television to C-SPAN, brew coffee by the gallon, and wait. This is not a declaration of clairvoyance, but rather a grounded belief in probability and distribution analysis. Why such pessimism? Because, and this is important, the time to capitalize off the current congressional administration’s ineptitude/indifference is running short, and every industry — from health care, to big oil, to telecommunication — wants to a) get away with as much as possible while they still can, and b) ensure that avenues allowing for significant exploitation of the public remain open indefinitely.

Enter Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. He’s vocally opposed the FISA bill (explained below) from the onset. Dodd’s recent speech served as caveat to the Senate, encouraging its members to consider the numerous, negative consequences their constituents would face were the bill to pass.

Mr. President: I rise—once again—to voice my strong opposition to the misguided FISA legislation before us today…this legislation includes provisions which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently have violated the privacy and the trust of millions of Americans by participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law.

And let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance.

And that difference—the difference between surveillance that is lawful, warranted and that which is not—is everything.

And there you have it, folks.

Retroactive telecom immunity + unlimited, legalized spying = a castrated democratic state.

Godspeed, Senator Dodd. Hopefully they’ll hear you out.

[Visit Senator Christopher Dodd's Website, Buy Shearwater]

Birds vs Communications Towers, FCC Replies “Whoosa What Now?”

The Acorn - Antenna

I’m not one to spend busy nights on questions. I drink top shelf declarations on the rocks. I breathe in exclamation points and cloves, fisticuffs and phonetics. But when I see a headline such as “FCC Ponders Solution To Bird-Slaying Communications Towers” the time has come to end a sentence or two with upward inflection.

Listening to [the conservationists'] plea were six FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff members… The meeting summary did not disclose what, if anything, these officials plan to do about the bird death problem. The matter has lain dormant for so long that the American Bird Conservancy recently sued the FCC and won most of their case in federal court. It remains to be seen, however, whether even this victory will spark significant results.

The Acorn think in chemistries. Life, to them, is the interplay between anatomy and the imperceptible. So when I read the above excerpt, and I hear “Antenna” kick off with the question “Was it always there, or contracted? Was it just the thought to which I was attracted?” I’m forced to reflect on what media matters mean to me.

When I created this site I’d meant for it to be 2/3 music love, 1/3 media-related rumination. Unfortunately, I neglected the latter severely.

All that stops now.

It’s more than the thought that attracts me to telecom/multimedia regulation; it’s high time I proved it.

And now to send The Acorn a gift basket.

[Buy The Acorn]

This Is Why Your Sales Are Dwindling

Perez Hilton, obnoxious gossip blogger extraordinaire, was recently pitched a deal by Warner Music. What kind of deal?
A $100,000/year, please-let-us-feed-on-your-site’s-impressionable-masses flavored deal!
That’s right: Warner Music wants Perez Hilton to assume the role of A&R Rep/talent scout/trendsetter/yet another reason to say, “dear god, why is this happening? what about the musicians?” That’s him in the picture. This is him as well.

See the “dear god, why?” See the shadow cast by the word ‘DOOM’ hovering over the industry?

But that’s not all! “Sony Pictures Television has made an approach through intermediaries to let Mr. [Jay] Leno and his representatives know that as soon as he is allowed to discuss his next move, the studio will make him a rich offer for a syndicated late-night show that would…give him a financial interest in Sony music artists who appear on his show.” Okay, so it wasn’t exactly Sony BMG’s (the major record label) doing, but come on. Really, guys? “Label imprint?” “Financial interest in music artists?” Why in the world are Perez Hilton and Jay Leno suddenly slated to earn considerable profits from musicians? What’s the point?

1) Record labels invest in the advertising draw of both celebrities.
2) Label execs generate revenue, bestow none to the artists, line their pockets a little longer until…
3) Industry collapses?

What a sad, sad week.