| I must admit to having become a political snob over the last couple of years, paying more attention to the US political landscape than is healthy. I check the top viewed websites on pretty well a daily basis, and am amazed by what the world is clicking on (in English). The worst of political viewpoints get the most web time (Ron Paul's web support anyone?) while articles based on truth tend to be ignored. This lovely tidbit was found to be the top story on Digg this afternoon, under the heading: "US Senate Annihilates Constitution" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?ex=1373428800&en=bb632045adfc0db3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink For those of you too lazy to read, I find two interesting points in the article. First, the article is referencing the renovation of FISA (1978) to "Broaden Wiretap Powers." If anyone was not aware of this, as a large number of people that will be voting for the first time in this election were not alive in '78, we don't have the same communications infrastructure that we had then. The rules in FISA were designed for a time when there were no cell phones, text messaging, or email. The technology having outgrown legislation (Seriously, thirty years of telecommunications advancement doesn't make you think that an update was in order?) called for the needed upgrade to the FISA. If you choose to disagree on this point, be my guest, just do not complain to me, I'll see you as someone lacking a grasp of reality. Second, the article misuses titles. There are men named George, Christopher, Russ, Barack, John, another John, and Bruce, as well as two women, Hillary and Nancy. Of these people, two are not given titles. George and Bruce. Bruce, again for those that didn't read the article, is a lawyer, suing Verizon and other carriers, for complicity with the NSA and the White House. He is implied to be one of the lawyers suing the government on the immunity given to the phone companies (as they are already litigating against them). Which should prove but one thing. This is not about newly envisioned "civil rights" (the suit would be against the government) but about money (Lawyers are fueled by the almighty dollar, it leaves that stereotypical greasy residue in their hair, NEVER trust a greasy haired lawyer.) and that being from the phone company. Bruce doesn't get a title, as "Lawyer" is his Job description (and Money Grubbing his disposition). The other Guy? George. He is an elected official, his job description happens to be a title, President. How is it proper to refer to him? Mr. President when addressed, or President Bush otherwise. What happens in the article? President Bush in the photo caption, and first mention, Mr. Bush elsewhere, except when referred to as "the president" (note the improper lower case in the usage, insert big thumbs up graphic here with your mind) in a quote by Sen. Rockefeller. Did you see that!!! "Sen. Rockefeller." Even though he was elected riding on the wealthy coattails of his grandpappy, still gets called Senator! To be fair to the ineptness of the author, President Bush and Sen. Obama are the only two with second mentions (None for you McCain!) Sen. Obama is also improperly referred to as "Mr. Obama" on his second go-around. I still have not found where the constitution was annihilated. It must say in there somewhere that it becomes null and void on this date. Probably on the same page the the seperation of Church and State that the nutjobs keep saying is in there. |
