Ivan and I discussed the FISA legislation that was passed by the House and Senate in the latest podcast and I had posted about it earlier on Saturday. I admitted on the Podcast though that even though I was expressing strong opinions on it I was undereducated on it and did not know all the details.

Well, I still haven’t read the actual bill, and most likely never will, but here is a link to a helpful summary (surrounded by the author’s opinions):

My Take on the New FISA Amendment
(Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy)

There is a lot of interesting material in the comments there too… as well as in the other places linked to from the article.

For those who listened to this week’s podcast, the below is the article on isolationism that I referred to.

The isolationist beast stirs in America again
(Andrew Sullivan, Times Online)

Since the 1930s, isolationism has rarely had a real chance at achieving the kind of ideological dominance it once had in America. The second world war and the cold war – with the fascist and communist threats always in the front of American minds – kept America enmeshed with the wider world. The first Gulf war seemed to presage a new form of engagement – multilateral, order-oriented, pax Americana.

The Bill Clinton years can be seen in retrospect as a kind of neutral zone – with much-reduced military spending, a policy of globalisation and free trade, but with sporadic intervention in various trouble spots: Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. Then Bush II – and the launching of the New American Century, galvanised by 9/11.

At first blush, 9/11 seemed to mean the end of even the dream of leaving the rest of the world behind. After all, terror had now reached American soil. War had been declared. What choice did Americans have but to fight back?

But the gruelling, soul-sapping war in Iraq has unsettled that idea considerably. Many Americans look at trying to coax democracy or even stability in the Arab world and conclude that it’s a mug’s game. If this is interventionism, could isolationism be much worse? The lead-up to the war disabused Americans of any notion that they could easily corral global support for their policing the planet. The follow-through has convinced them they cannot do it by themselves either. You can see why opting out has begun to appeal.

(via The Daily Dish)

This kinda scares me.

Nimoy to Reprise Spock Role in ‘Trek’ Film
(Sandy Cohen, AP on Chicago Tribune)

Leonard Nimoy isn’t through with Spock yet. The 76-year-old actor will don his famous pointy ears again to play the role in an upcoming “Star Trek” film due out Christmas 2008.

…

Nimoy was joined by the newly named young Spock, “Heroes” star Zachary Quinto, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Nimoy.

(via Slashdot)

On this weekend’s podcast, Ivan asked me to name some things that Ron Paul actually voted “yes” on in congress. Since he is only known for voting “no” I said I had no idea without doing some research. Feeling obligated to follow up, here are the 10 most recent things Ron Paul voted “Yes” to in the House. (My source is here.) Note that the first couple directly contradict something I said in the podcast. Oops.

1. 2007 Jul 23 – Vote 689: H RES 519: Honoring the Life and Accomplishments of Tom Lea on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth
2. 2007 Jul 23 – Vote 688: H RES 553: Mourning the Passing of Lady Bird Johnson
3. 2007 Jul 23 – Vote 687: H R 404: Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act (To require the establishment of customer service standards for Federal agencies.)
4. 2007 Jul 19 – Vote 672: H R 3043 – Davis of Kentucky Amendment (An amendment to prohibit funds to be used to pay a bonus or other performance-based cash award to any employee of the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who holds a position to which such employee was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or a Senior Executive Service position.)
5. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 668: H R 3043 – Flake of Arizona Amendment 15 (An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds for the American Ballet Theatre, New York, New York, for educational activities.)
6. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 666: H R 3043 – Barton of Texas Amendment (An amendment to strike the proviso on page 36, beginning at line 5 which states that within the amounts provided for part A of title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, funds are included to ensure that the amount of any funding provided under such part to a metropolitan area for the program year beginning in 2007 is not reduced by an amount that is more than 8.4 percent, and the amount of any funding provided under subpart II of such part to a transitional area is not reduced by an amount that is more than 13.4 percent, relative to the amount of the total funding provided under such part to the metropolitan area or transitional area, respectively, for the program year beginning in fiscal year 2006.)
7. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 665: H R 3043 – Dingell of Michigan Amendment (An amendment to prohibit the use of funds be used to pay the basic pay of any individual serving as Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration, whose appointment to such position has not been confirmed by a vote of the Senate pursuant to section 702(b)(1) of the Social Security Act. )
8. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 662: H R 3043 – Lamborn of Colorado Amendment (An amendment numbered 56 printed in the Congressional Record to strike line 7 and all that follows through the comma on page 104, line 12. )
9. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 661: H R 3043 – Shadegg of Arizona Amendment No. 55 (An amendment numbered 17 printed in the Congressional Record reduce appropriations for the Corporation for National and Community Service. )
10. 2007 Jul 18 – Vote 660: H R 3043 – Price of Georgia Amendment (An amendment numbered 65 printed in the Congressional Record to reduce funding for the Student Financial Assistance account by $64,987,000. )

So that’s actually 10 yes votes in under a week.

The full total of Ron Paul votes in the last 7 full days (2007 Jul 17 to 2007 Jul 23) is:

• 28 – Yes
• 15 – No
• 14 – Not Voting

That gives a 26% no record, 35% if you don’t count the times he didn’t vote… but still not a 95% no record as I stated in the podcast… at least in the last week of votes. Oops again.

In my defense though, looking at the 10 listed above, you can see that even the Yes votes look like they are amendments which are actually against things. So even when voting yes, he is voting against something. But I guess that is always true in a way, so I’ll just shut up now.

Well, maybe not quite yet. One more set of stats from this last set of votes. Not counting the times he did not vote:

• 18 votes – Voted agreeing with Repub position against Dems
• 13 votes – Voted agreeing with position supported by both parties
• 9 votes – Voted opposite from position supported by both parties
• 3 votes – Voted agreeing with Dem position against Repubs

Interesting I guess. Note though that if you look at the list of “Important Votes” from Project Vote Smart instead of just the last week of all votes, you see a much larger percentage of “No” votes.

Looking back, it has been a while since I posted something news related, but earlier today I was reading the following article:

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
(Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post)

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.

(via The Volokh Conspiracy)

The Dems of course are outraged as usual, but will do nothing because they don’t have enough votes to make anything stick. But what leaves me baffled with this and a lot of the overreaches by this administration… all along, but ESPECIALLY in the last couple of years or so… is that congressional Republicans are still just saying “Oh, OK”. Because this sort of issue goes beyond the specifics of the issue at hand today, but goes to basic organizational principles of the government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

OK, fine, you’re a die hard Republican and agree with the President on this specific issue today and think that the congressional investigations are just partisan harassment. Fine. Consider that point granted. In future years however, be it in 2009 or in another 4, 8, 16, or 32 years, there will be an administration that you oppose that has done something you believe may be against the law. Perhaps even in a way more serious than the issues at stake today. Do you REALLY want to set the precedent that any president can essentially say “No” to almost any congressional investigation of his or her staff?

If Hillary wins, several years later after it becomes clear that her staff is also full of corrupt slimeballs who have been pushing the limits of the law and may well have stepped over the line (as I’m sure will happen pretty much no matter who wins, because it seems like that is one Washington constant one can count on), do we really want there to be no way to investigate that when she claims privilege?

This same argument applies to ALL the places where there has been expansion of Executive power and reduction in the power of Congress or the courts. The President decides who is going to be able to declared an “unlawful enemy combatant” and therefore has essentially no rights? Really? OK, you like this when the President is W. Would you really like this power to be in the hands of President Kucinich? (OK, so we know THAT is not going to happen, but you get the point.)

Fundamentally, it is critical that when making decisions about who gets to decide things, in what way are they decided, and how such decisions can be revisited… that the decision about the PROCESS is made independently of any considerations of the specific issue at hand, and the specific political balance of the day. If you make decisions about the limits of executive power, about what can be appealed and what can’t be, about what issues should be decided at the federal level, which at the state level, and which at the local level, about how laws should be enforced after they are passed, about what can be decided by the courts and what needs to be legislated, about what level of discretion prosecutors should have… etc. If you make any of these decisions based on what is the easiest way to get the policies you support in place TODAY, then you are almost guaranteed to be screwing YOURSELF in the future when the tides of power shift.

When you give power to an entity, you should NEVER be thinking about how that power will be wielded in the hands of your friends. You should be thinking about how that power will be wielded in the hands of your enemies. If you are not happy with that thought, then it should not be the way things should be organized now either.

Congressional Republicans should be just as outraged as the Democrats if W stonewalls against a Congressional investigation. Even if they disagree with the investigation itself. Because regardless of the issue at hand, this sets horrible precedents for the future if allowed to stand. Can Congress serve as an effective balance to the power of the president or not. Do you REALLY want a President with almost unlimited power and a Congress which means nothing?

There should be a long and hard think before something like that is allowed to stand. And your position on the particular rights or wrongs of this specific Congress, and this specific President, should be absolutely irrelevant to the decision. If not… regardless of where you stand on today’s issues… you are putting the future in danger.