Wiretap defender outraged at being wiretapped.

[BlackPete]

Say it ain't so, Jane! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/harman/index.html)

Blue Dog Rep. Jane Harman -- once the most vigorous Democratic cheerleader of Bush's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program -- is rip-roarin' angry today.

From a linked article:

Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

In return, the Israeli agent pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.


The word "schadenfreude" was invented for this story.

[Johan]

You know, I truly believe that political corruption and scandal is a bipartisan affair. The real problem is there are so few Republicans around that the Democrats are hogging all the light on this stuff! :D

Hell...of the few Republicans who are around, many are less "Republican" in ideology than some Blue-Dog Democrats.

[ShivaX]

Thats just classic.

[BlackPete]

You know, I truly believe that political corruption and scandal is a bipartisan affair. The real problem is there are so few Republicans around that the Democrats are hogging all the light on this stuff! :D

Hell...of the few Republicans who are around, many are less "Republican" in ideology than some Blue-Dog Democrats.

I have a feeling that most hardcore leftists will simply stop reading at "cheerleader of Bush" and simply say "Oh she's a DINO."

The reality is... the entire government needs a good flushing out. Taco Bell's toilets are cleaner than these politicans.

[Generation ABXY]

The reality is... the entire government needs a good flushing out. Taco Bell's toilets are cleaner than these politicans.

Congressional term limits would be a great start, IMO.

[rifter]

Congressional term limits would be a great start, IMO.

This is LONG over due. Both sides are completely morally bankrupt. The only way to START fixing things, is term limits. Reduce individual power and corruption.

[Johan]

Term limits aren't enough. Lobbyists can hang around for years.

I have a solution. If you don't have a legal primary residence in Washington, you must leave within six years, and stay away for six years. If you do have a legal primary residence in D.C., then my only question is...WHY? ;) You also have to leave within six years. Of course, all this 'leaving' only applies to lobbyists and senators/representatives.

[Generation ABXY]

Term limits aren't enough.

I did say it was a start, Johan. You have to crawl before you can walk, as they say. ;)

[ShivaX]

Term limits aren't enough. Lobbyists can hang around for years.

I have a solution. If you don't have a legal primary residence in Washington, you must leave within six years, and stay away for six years. If you do have a legal primary residence in D.C., then my only question is...WHY? ;) You also have to leave within six years. Of course, all this 'leaving' only applies to lobbyists and senators/representatives.

The problem is if you write a letter to your congressman or even talk to them, you're technically a lobbyist. So unless you prevent anyone from ever talking to any government official, its not going to work. The waitress that serves a Senator his coffee and tell him her opinion on anything is a lobbyist. Sure her lobby likely consists of just her, but theres no real difference between a normal person and a lobbyist, other than normal people pay lobbyists to do the talking for them since they have real lives.

[Ancalagon]

Term limits aren't enough. Lobbyists can hang around for years.


Well, I have a little rope, I'm sure we can fix something to help them "hang" around.

Seriously though, this is great lulz. I hope one of those hardlining political commentators interviews her and points out to her what she said not too long ago. Talk about eating your words and double standards.

[Kelegacy]

Term limits aren't enough. Lobbyists can hang around for years.

I have a solution. If you don't have a legal primary residence in Washington, you must leave within six years, and stay away for six years. If you do have a legal primary residence in D.C., then my only question is...WHY? ;) You also have to leave within six years. Of course, all this 'leaving' only applies to lobbyists and senators/representatives.

Lobbyists and lack of term limits are both issues and I agree with changing these completely.

As for the OP, haha. Sorry Jane, can't be a hypocrite!

[Khrymsyn]

Jane you ignorant slut!


Honestly, I'm glad this happened. It should happen more often. What I mean by "it" is laws coming back to bite the people in the ass who voted for them, when they think they are above the law. I'd love to have an audit done to congress on all of thier computers and ipods on thier person and thier home for illegal mp3s and movies.

Yes, corruption runs deep, but there ARE some hard working congressmen and women. I think things have gotten "convoluted" enough that sometimes even the honest ones aren't 100% sure what they are voting for or what it means.

[BlackPete]

I hope one of those hardlining political commentators interviews her and points out to her what she said not too long ago.

There was one who kept asking her about the contents of the wiretapped sessions, but she claimed that she didn't remember and that she'd have to read the transcript. The reporter wasn't buying it and kept prompting her... either she doesn't remember and has nothing to be outraged about, or she DID remember (but won't admit it) and that's why she's so angry.

I'll have to try to find a transcript of this.

[torrefaction]

I have a feeling that most hardcore leftists will simply stop reading at "cheerleader of Bush" and simply say "Oh she's a DINO."

The reality is... the entire government needs a good flushing out. Taco Bell's toilets are cleaner than these politicans.

uCEeAn6_QJo

[Shadowstorm]

Why can't we just outlaw lobbying? Serious question.

[torrefaction]

Why can't we just outlaw lobbying? Serious question.

Because there is a legitimate need for corporations to have a voice in the government. How loud of a voice is always the problem. Otherwise, because of the way corporations are defined by law, it would be taxation w/o representation.

[National Kato]

Otherwise, because of the way corporations are defined by law, it would be taxation w/o representation.

You mean we'd get to have more Tea Parties?! Wheeee! :p

[Ox]

Why can't we just outlaw lobbying? Serious question.
"Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

EDIT: torre, I mercilessly mock you for being extremely wrong.

[Johan]

"Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Campaign finance law. How has THAT restriction on speech held up? :confused:

[Ox]

Campaign finance law. How has THAT restriction on speech held up? :confused:
Hey, don't ask me: I'm not a fan of CFR. I am unlikely to give a fairminded description of the rationale judges have used to uphold CFR. Although I will note that CFR laws have been struck down in the past for this reason.

[Shadowstorm]

Because there is a legitimate need for corporations to have a voice in the government. How loud of a voice is always the problem. Otherwise, because of the way corporations are defined by law, it would be taxation w/o representation.

Yeah, I don't know. The way I see it, while corporations have the tools (money primarily) to scream, rage, and roar over a pending bill that would benefit them or hurt them (but if it hurts them, it helps consumers, I find), us citizens are sadly not so fortunate. The voice of the citizen is strongly outweighed by the voice of the corporation.

Why do citizens have a $1000 dollar donation limit to give to politicians (especially during election time), but no such limit exists for corporations?

In law, the corporation is defined as a person. Why? There is an interesting documentary I have watched called, aptly, The Corporation, and its premise is that said corporation is legally defined as a person in our society, and it attempts to diagnose the person's character. The ultimate result is that it is a psychopath. I strongly recommend everyone look into that. I think it echoes my feelings pretty clearly and concisely.

When everything is said and done, there is a lot of shit that happens behind closed doors that shouldn't be occurring. Transparency is unfortunately lacking to a degree that is despicable at best.

Things like the DMCA exist because of powerful multibillion dollar industries that have money to burn and lobby with. We don't. It's a pissing match that we consumers lose pretty damn quick.

[torrefaction]

"Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

EDIT: torre, I mercilessly mock you for being extremely wrong.

Is it though? I mean, I was thinking of intent. And if you can't petition the government for redress, you don't have representation, right?

[Ox]

Why do citizens have a $1000 dollar donation limit to give to politicians (especially during election time), but no such limit exists for corporations?
Because the equivalent dollar limit for corporate donations is $0? Corporations aren't allowed to donate directly to electoral campaigns. They've been banned from that since 1907. And the dollar limit for citizens is $2,000, also known as "infinity times as much as corporations get".

In law, the corporation is defined as a person. Why?
You have it backwards: a corporation is a legal person who is not a real person. Any organization with legal personhood, including groups like the ACLU, the Red Cross, etc., is a corporation of some kind. Legal personality has a lot of convenient advantages, like not having to pay inheritance taxes when some members die. It also provides limited liability. Ultimately, a corporation is nothing more than a tool by which individuals choose to act in concert. I'm not sure why individuals who act in concert somehow lose the rights they had back when they were acting alone.
There is an interesting documentary I have watched called, aptly, The Corporation, and its premise is that said corporation is legally defined as a person in our society, and it attempts to diagnose the person's character. The ultimate result is that it is a psychopath.
Wow. You mean a legal fiction isn't really true? So that must mean... oh, now I know why they call it a fiction.

Is it though? I mean, I was thinking of intent. And if you can't petition the government for redress, you don't have representation, right?
Yeah, but there's no prohibition on taxation without representation. Foreign citizens and companies in America have to pay American taxes, but they don't have rights of representation. Foreign citizens can't donate to political campaigns, for example.

[Shadowstorm]

Why must you come across as very arrogant? I know you have more knowledge of the law than a lot of people here, but I think we're all on the path of learning. Talking down to me isn't very mature of you.

/me is unimpressed.

[torrefaction]

Yeah, but there's no prohibition on taxation without representation. Foreign citizens and companies in America have to pay American taxes, but they don't have rights of representation. Foreign citizens can't donate to political campaigns, for example.

Well, that's why I prefaced it with stating the way corporations are defined by law. A corporation is legally a citizen, so if they are taxed, they would not have representation. I don't see where I was extremely wrong...?

[Ox]

Why must you come across as very arrogant? I know you have more knowledge of the law than a lot of people here, but I think we're all on the path of learning. Talking down to me isn't very mature of you.
I was much more mocking the film than you. Attempting to psychoanalyze a social institution is a really silly idea. What would a prison look like if it were a human being with a consciousness? How about a church? They would both look like they needed straitjackets. Just because lawyers say that corporations have a certain legal status doesn't mean they're actually people. You'd think someone who went through the effort of making a documentary would have had a conversation with someone who could explain that to him.

But I am sorry for insulting you. That was not my intention. I am very arrogant, however; you're right about that.

Well, that's why I prefaced it with stating the way corporations are defined by law. A corporation is legally a citizen, so if they are taxed, they would not have representation. I don't see where I was extremely wrong...?
Everything about that is true. It just has nothing to do with why lobbying is legal. So you're wrong to cite any of that as the reason why lobbying can't be outlawed.

[Johan]

Talking down to me isn't very mature of you.

You'll need to get in line. I was first on the butt end of that! :)

We're all learning to walk a bit more carefully, because stepping on toes can be avoided, and isn't nice. Right? I know I'm trying. :o

Edit: Did anyone in here mention that Pelosi knew about this wiretapping, but couldn't say anything because it was top secret/restricted access information? That was interesting to me.

[DylonCorp]

You'll need to get in line. I was first on the butt end of that! :)

We're all learning to walk a bit more carefully, because stepping on toes can be avoided, and isn't nice. Right? I know I'm trying. :o

Off topic, I know you're trying. I think everyone in these threads has done a great job of keeping things polite, and I'm digging the hell out of it.

[Ancalagon]

I was much more mocking the film than you. Attempting to psychoanalyze a social institution is a really silly idea. What would a prison look like if it were a human being with a consciousness? How about a church? They would both look like they needed straitjackets. Just because lawyers say that corporations have a certain legal status doesn't mean they're actually people. You'd think someone who went through the effort of making a documentary would have had a conversation with someone who could explain that to him.

Err, no, the film got all that across. Rather, it posed the possibility that, if a corporation were a real person (already being a legal person) what kind of person would it be? Put it this way - they anthropomorphized a corporation.

The personality traits they got, unsurprisingly, resembled a psychopath.

[Ox]

Okay. So? I don't understand why it's any more disturbing that a corporation would be a bad real person than it is that a prison or church would be a bad person. Heck, imagine if the government, which also has legal personality, is a person! Think about the government's absolute refusal even to consider ever forming an opinion about the existence of God while also demanding that it has a monopoly of violence, and tell me it's not a whacko looking to climb a clock tower. I don't think I've said anything interesting about government, though.

[Ancalagon]

Go watch the film Ox.

[Ox]

Fuck. Fine. But when I get back, I am going to mock the ever-loving Christ out of it, its makers, and everyone who ever said anything good about it, ever. If the production company was a person, I'd be worried about hurting its feelings. But it's not, so I don't.

[Generation ABXY]

In the meantime, you can check out the trailer...Horse

xa3wyaEe9vE

EDIT: Too slow; they got their hooks in you. :p