Can You Hear Me Now?

Let's talk about privacy peeps.

Have you seen this stuff that Cheney wants extended ?

It's causing quite a stir in Whitehouse offices everywhere actually.

The fuss concerns the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) which allows gov peeps the ability for 'the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power.'

And he appears to be all-in on this little number. An amendment died on the floor Thursday that claimed the checking and balancing power of the act.

From E-Commerce Times article by Katherine Noyes:

"Fighting the war on terror is a long-term enterprise that requires long-term, institutional changes," Cheney said. "The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won't expire any time soon -- and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise."

....

"The methods Cheney lauds have actually undermined our support around the world, emboldened our enemies and given them propaganda to use against us," possibly creating more terrorists than are being stopped, Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now policy counsel for national security issues with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the E-Commerce Times.

"Turning the security apparatus against the people is a violation of our fundamental agreement with the government about the limits of its power," German added.
In addition, "our intelligence agencies don't need more power, they need better management," German asserted. "Giving them more power without better management won't serve our security interests at all."

Another issue involves texting: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick intimate texts with one of his staff members were recently monitored. (The info was only legally watched because the city used a close network type thing for its officials)

Newsflash: IT'S A GIRL!

This morning I tuned into a podcast only to find Hillary Clinton's femininity the topic of the political discussion. That's right skirts vs. suits at 8 a.m. while I sip on my morning brew made perfect with HEB Gingerbread creamer. (mmmm ... love fall!)

Guess what everyone: Hillary Clinton is a woman. And her campaign team (if not her explicitly) is going to use this fact to her advantage.

Clearly THIS is breaking news.

Other news outlets filled with similar Buzz shortly after Clinton's use of a "gender card" during a televised Democratic debate in which the Senator referred to her co-debaters as being part of a "boys club."

Let's not kid ourselves, politicians of all kinds utilize any angle possible to grab votes. Jesus has been an undeniable "homeboy" for most of those blazing the presidential trail. Thank goodness we have Pat Robertson to show us who is for real.....

Here's my point: are we (the media) playing right into Hillary's manicured fingers? More buzz = more votes.

I hear more about Clinton on issues like this than on the woman's actual policy. Perhaps this is because she fails to distinguish herself from her ex-pres of a husband and has an apparent failure to take firm stands on immigration issues such as driver license policies in New York. (yikes that was awkward, Hillary)

But don't worry: WOMANHOOD is the ultimate distraction for any Clinton policy concerns.

In the media, we need to be careful. I think Americans (for the most part) are smart enough to recognize blatant political fishing like Hillary's for the woman vote, Robertson endorsements for Guilliani and McCain's new found Baptist beliefs.

Point it out (because on some level it reflects the candidates character) and then move on to I dunno.... education, immigration, Social Security, international relations ....

I think in terms of election coverage: less can be more. But that is just my opinion.