Kos wrote an interesting post yesterday that deserves some further discussion. He offered his thoughts on Hillary Clinton (which were right on the money in my opinion) and in the midst of it mentions something that Hillary did last week that has not gotten nearly enough attention. (I would suggest that it would have gotten a lot of blogospheric attention if she wanted to use this medium to promote her ideas. This speaks to us directly.)
Last week Hillary introduced what I think should be a primary plank of the the Democratic Party:A Privacy Bill Of Rights. Indeed, I think this is the most fertile territory out there to gain some disaffected Republican voters and put some of the mountain west in our electoral quiver. It’s smart politics.
I happen to be a believer in the Democratic strategy that includes pulling on the civil libertarian threads in our coalition to weave a bigger tent. I’m personally horrified by the excesses of this administration and terribly worried that the huge bureaucratic domestic surveillance apparatus they are building is going to be impossible to control. I hear tales from all over the country of wads of DHS pork going to local and state police departments to use to spy on their own citizens and we know that at the national level they’ve pretty much discarded the fourth amendment and have enabled both the foreign and military spy agencies to work within our borders. There’s a lot of money and power involved, it’s secret and it’s fundamentally anti-democratic. We are building a police state and I firmly believe that, politics aside, if you build it they will use it.
That all this has been done by the alleged libertarian small government Republicans is no surprise to me. They have always been about big bucks and authoritarianism over all else. But it seems to me that it may come as a surprise to people with a certain "don’t tread on me" kind of ethos, particularly in the west which has a long tradition of such sentiment. If these tribal divides about which I often write exist, then there is a big one here. And if politics need to play to the gut as much as the head and the heart, this issue is powerful. Democrats have an opportunity to craft a real message of American independence if they choose to take it — and it might just be the way to beat back the fear factor a little bit, which I think people are getting tired of.
But there is another aspect of this which is important, as well. Clinton’s privacy Bill of Rights includes a lot of consumer protections, which is something that I think is a truly sellable, populist idea. The intrusion into our private lives by government is a threat to our individual liberty. The intrusion (and collusion) by its ally, corporate America, is truly a threat to the fundamental definition of what it means to be an American. The ability to amass all this data and create profiles of us and put us into categories and label us as being one thing or another according to complex formulas, means that the great innovation of America — the ability to reinvent ourselves and take risks — will no longer be optional. The great nation of immigrants and hucksters and innovators will become a stratified society based on criteria that has nothing to do with our potential and everything to do with our past.
Hillary said in her speech the other day: "privacy is synonymous with liberty." This is correct. We give it up far too thoughtlessly in our culture and its going to come back to bite us if we don’t wake to the fact that big powerful forces are poking into our lives in unprecedented ways and will use the information they get to force us into little boxes they design.
Democrats need to make some new arguments. They need to talk in terms that are relevant to today’s world. Progressives are about progress; we cannot only be concerned about maintaining what we’ve got. We must forge on. If we believe in the common good, which I do, it must be tempered with a healthy respect for individual privacy. Without the freedom of privacy we will not be able to come together to create a better world. We’ll all be too busy furtively looking over our shoulders to pay attention to the road ahead.
Related posts:
- Leon Panetta: I’ve Got to Protect the Contractors from Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy
- Fanfare for the Common Moron
- Obama Tries to Suffocate Ridiculous Gates Controversy with Soothing Blanket of Words, Common Sense
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert H. Frank, The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times
- Larry Summers Aide Luring Veal Pen with Donor Cash at Common Purpose Meeting





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

fitz
Excellent, excellent post. Thanks so much, Digby, for beginning a much needed conversation on this. Glenn’s book was a good start, and this moves things along to the next step.
Can we sic Fitz on Verizon and AT&T?
Amen.
I agree completely, Digby. Privacy rights should be front-and-center in every Democratic candidate’s campaign this year.
Digby–
Awesome post on an important subject.
At the doctor’s office yesterday I was asked to sign a privacy statement. Why bother? There is no more privacy.
So much for conservative Republicans keeping big government out of everyone’s lives. How’s that been going?
FIGHT BACK
Rove’s answer: “The Democrats are the party of people that have something to hide. We are the party of people who support the war on terror and are not afraid of reasonable use of the President’s inherent powers towards the goal of catching terrorists who want to do America harm. This is an incredibly frivolous proposal which underscores how the Democrats are not suited to waging the war on terror.
On the one hand, they want to cut and run from Iraq, emboldening the terrorists and throwing away the security that Bush has brought. Thanks to Bush, there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, but the Democrats cutting and running will bring the fight back here at home. Thank God the American people realize that we can’t afford this kind of seesawing in response to the day to day changes in the war.
And then, imagine if the Democrats cut and run AND succeed in hobbling the President’s inherent authority to protect the American people by using secret methods to catch terrorits.
If the Democrats succeed in their ill-conceived, cowardly plans, we’ll see things that make 9/11 look like a summer picnic.
..”
“
Afternoon. Well Digby, a very nice article but…no thank you. I simply will not endorse anything with Hillary’s name on it. In fact, IF she becomes the 2008 Democratic nominee, it will mark the FIRST time I will ever vote in a presidential election for someone other than the Democratic nominee.
1. I do however think that a privacy bill, if well crafted, could/would get alot of attention/support. Just get somebody else to sponsor it.
2. One of the early writers on this area is Carolyn Kennedy (yes, “the” Carolyn Kennedy) She wrote a book some years back warning about gov’t intrusion into the daily lives and privacy of Americans.
I like the subject! But wouldn’t trust Hillary with it.
Ghostman
OT, but finally got a reply from DiFi re net neutrality:
Thank you for writing to me again regarding my position
on network neutrality. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my
previous letter to you.
I agree with the general principles of network neutrality
that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet
should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and
should not be able to discriminate against content provider access
to that network.
As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications
laws this year, many different proposals have been offered
regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not
action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I
believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the
network, service and information providers. Please know that
when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the
Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.
I wrote yesterday about how disappointed I was to hear that Senator Clinton voted against the Kerry-Feingold Iraq amendment, because I basically like her and see her as having real leadership potential for the Democratic Party. I hope that she comes to see the continuing occupation of Iraq for the really bad idea that it is. I am pleased to see what she has now done on the privacy issue.
Yeah, Ghostman @ 8
Good message, questionable messenger.
I think your words ring true digby, but I also think America has long since passed the tipping point on individual privacy/liberty. Our existance is tied to Government and corporations. They feed us and clothe us(but not for free!). We are their dependents, subjects if you will, so why wouldn’t they start “watching over”(read: monitoring) us and thinking for us? It’s totalitarian creep. It’s the reason gays have to ask permission to get married and it’s the reason the government can tell us all to wear our seatbelts or else. America has been in it’s grip for decades and it was only a matter of time before someone came along and abused it(thanks George!). So noone should be surprised. This is a gift from our grandparents that we welcomed with open arms in blissful ignorance. We brought this on ourselves.
Some peopel will say “only the Republicans. No, the Democrats are a part of it too.
itwasntme at 9 — Could that response be any more nuanced? (No, I thought not…)
YES!
The Republican party has never fooled me, and this has been the source of many arguments I’ve had with conservatives. “It’s the party of freedom!” has always been the argument they make, usually in a breath with the notion of privatization (”freedom of business” is how they phrase it.)
THe thing they forget is that if power is to be wielded, then better it is wielded by government than industry, because at least with government we have some chance at having a say about it.
More importantly, private entities do not have to adhere to the Constitution. The massive losses of freedoms that we have been seeing in the US are possible largely because of privatization. Private businesses, unconstrained from having to behave in an American fashion, can legally ignore Constitutional guarantees, and the government proper can reap the “benefits.”
I see this as the largest issue before us — maybe second to the voting issue. Larger than the war, larger than the economy, larger than the environment. Because if we lose on this issue, we can’t effectively address any of the others.
Ghostman,
That’s not a very persuasive argument. This issue is bigger than Hillary and bigger than you. Let democracy work, let the people pick their candidates and then make your choice. If on election day 2008 you think that the Republican or someone else will be a better candidate then vote your conscience and sleep well that night.
Until then, this is all about trying to craft a winning message. Worrying about whose name is on the legislation is, frankly, completely beside the point.
libertarian small government Republicans
HA!
What happened to them? I used to think they were an important check in the balance. I sure hope Hillarys proposed legislation has the teeth of Jaws. Thanks Digby
You make a good point Digby. I was born and raised on the West coast.I have been intensely independent my whole life and despise what this country is becoming.Being from the left coast, There are thousands of hard working,hard playing people just like me.The last thing I want or need is the frikkin government eavesdropping,spying,and keeping track of what I do or say. It’s bad enough just going to the damn grocery store anymore. Ya gotta have a frikkin ‘Club Card’ or other B.S. membership thing to get a decent price on anything. Of course, they KEEP TRACK of your purchasing habits.Who cares if I buy ten times more beer than anyone within a square mile of where I live?If the Feds can make the phone companies cough up their info, how hard is it going to be to muscle Safeway to get their database?Add all that up with electronic bank records and they have ya by the short hairs.
nuanced = contentless
“clarify my position”
??????????????????????
I have read that DiFi “reply” (note she mentions she’s written to you before!) and I have no idea her stand. I’m writing her right now.
Great post, Digby, and certainly a way to weave cloth for a bigger tent. I think the aspect of Markos’ post that deserves some debate, as well, is that Senator Clinton has not asked for the support, action, and strategic assistance of the netroots, a natural consitiuency for this particular effort. Is the web-train leaving the station without Hill aboard?
It is not that I think that issues of privacy aren’t good political points, but I think the idea of a Privacy Bill of Rights is not the right way to make privacy a political issue in 2006 or 2008.
We already have a Bill of Rights the purpose of which is (not was, is), among other things, to protect our privacy.
By stating that we need a NEW Bill of Rights to protect privacy rights buys into the idea that what TEAM LOSER is doing in the name of “national security,” the “War on Terra” or whatever other rationale, is constitutional.
We don’t need MORE privacy rights, we need the ones the constution already provides enforced.
If I were a rethug, I would thank Hillary for framing the debate on privacy in these terms, since it gives me a free pass on the whole issue of legality. Once there, it is just a debate about degree, not what the Constitution forbids the government to do.
Admittedly, I’ve never been a fan of Hillary (and yes, she was once my Senator), since I have no clue what she has ever really stood for (for good or ill), and more importantly b/c everyone says she is “brilliant” and I just wish that someone would tell me exactly what she is brilliant at (really, tell me, I want to know).
And, if this is the level of her political thought and election strategy I see no reason to change my views.
Privacy is a vitally important issue, but this is just glib political hucksterism on her part, and not even good glib political hucksterism.
If she said the issue was the unconstitutionality of TEAM LOSER’s invasions of our privacy, she would be on to something, but she didn’t, did she; if she said that Congress should provide meaningful oversight of the Executive, she would be on to something.
But noooooooooooo.
This is an excellent initiative. Whatever other problems we may have with Hillary, and there are many, this deserves our attention and support. Kudos to her for advancing it.
As one who has for years called myself a Libertarian Progressive (or is it Progressive Libertarian?) this is great news. It speaks, as Digy points out, to a large disaffected and formerly Republican sector of the electorate. It’s a message that can resonate. Libertarian in terms of civil rights and privacy and minimum government interference in our personal lives and choices, and progressive in terms of the things only a community can accomplish, such as insuring free markets undistorted by powerful multinational oligopolic corporations, health care, environmental protection, etc.
It’s not the “mommy” view of government Dems have been derided for, nor the “you’re on your own, sucker,” position being foisted on us by both Repubs and old line, mostly hypocritical and intellectually dishonest so-called Libertarians.
Maybe this is the start of a new, genuine “third way.” That said, now get real about the “war” Hillary. It ain’t a war, it’s an occupation, and it’s doomed to failure.
Digby, thanks for this. I’ve believed for some time that Democrats should be pushing privacy issues, both as a matter of principle and as a smart political move. So I’m delighted to see Hillary – even though I’m not a big fan of hers – take this up, and I hope other Democrats will be smart enough to join her. I’ll certainly be letting Boxer and Feinstein know about it.
One challenge with these libertarian types is that many are also gun lovers. Rover’s already loosed one of many propaganda campaigns via the NRA regarding gun control. Just the other day it was the UN linked with taking away their guns. It seemed to result in the desired kneejerk defensive posturing. These “don’t tread on me types” must be assured that the dems are not gonna go after their beloved guns. Can they be convinced that we only want to ban assault rifles/machine guns/big bore short barrel (easily converted) semi autos or must they have these too?
Bustednuckles @ 11:56 am said “It’s bad enough just going to the damn grocery store anymore. Ya gotta have a frikkin ‘Club Card’ or other B.S. membership thing to get a decent price on anything.”
At least out here in Oregon, that’s not entirely true yet. There are plenty of stores and a few large chains that don’t use pricing to coerce you into using their Spy Cards. I shop exclusively at those places, and encourage others to do likewise.
Even without a spy card, though, don’t use a credit/debit card. They track everything in exactly the same way with those, but you won’t even get the price breaks.
And I just want to say, bravo, to The Rude Pundit. Thank you.
14, digby…well, we just disagree! No big deal. And, I wasn’t trying to make a persuasive argument…just expressing my viewpoint. But one should bear in mind….LOTS of voters out there “gag” anytime they see something with Hillary’s name on it. And I’m referencing Democratic friends of mine.
The issue you raise is DAMN important. It should be raised more. But if you want to learn how to WIN, part of the formula is choosing a leader whom people will follow. I just wish somebody else would take leadership on this important issue. As I said, we just disagree!
But please do keep up your good work. I enjoy your ideas.
Ghostman
TeddySanFran
I wonder how Senator Clinton would respond to a blogswarm of letters, e-mails and phone calls saying “We are the netroots and we think your privacy bill is a step in the right direction. Please work with us to ensure that the concerns of Internet users are fully addressed.”
Worth a try?
It’s so odd that values traditionally associated with conservatism–individual liberties, states’ rights, fiscal conservatism, small government, &c.–have been abandoned by the Right and are ripe for the picking.
I too have to give kudos to Hillary for taking the initiative on this. Hopefully my kudos, and the recognition of none other than Digby and Kos, will be sufficiently satisfying for her to forego any plans for a presidential bid.
The HIPPA legislation — the annoying patient confidentiality paperwork that egregious had to sign — is actually a good thing for protecting privacty. It originally came out of Hillary’s legislative shop. She’s been very good on the privacy issue throughout her short legislative career.
Hillary supported the competing Democratic resolution yesterday as a sponsor, IIRC. I disagree with her on that, but I hardly consider it a disqualification for office. Democrats can disagree. I suspect that some of the anti-Hillary Dems like ghostman have sublimanally absorbed a bit of Republican spin. That being said, I’d prefer to see a presidential candidate with more experience than John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama.
Oh, and: “Progressives are about progress; we cannot only be concerned about maintaining what we’ve got” is, of course, precisely why Establishment Dems are useless to us. Maintaining what power they’ve got, even at the expense of the greater good of the country, seems to be their highest principle.
I have a deep and abiding disrespect of Hillary Clinton, but Digby is absolutely right.
It is essential that we support efforts to advance policies we agree with, even if we have a problem with the person advancing them.
Digby, as always – a very focused and useful take. Thanks.
27, j.bean: “I suspect that some of the anti-Hillary Dems like ghostman have sublimanally absorbed a bit of Republican spin.”
Um, no. Incorrect. But I’ll leave it at that.
Ghostman
If the Republicans are going to keep trotting out the “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” line, can we please see Clarence Thomas’s video rental list?
As much as I hate Hillary’s war mongering triangulation, I’ll take her any day vs. more guaranteed rethuglican fascism.
Jbean – My antiHillarytarianism is not spin, and it is sui generic. Try again.
Yes privacy is paramount. Civil liberties that we take for granted like access to birth control. I would like to take it a step further.
My Mom has cancer. Her homeowner’s policy on her home/business was just cancelled. She is now worried the same will happen to her healthcare. She and my dad both have their own business. If you are insured through a small group for healthcare they can just cancel you.
My Mom pays her premium every month, she pays her taxes and she employs others in her business. She is 59 so she is not yet eligible for medicare. As I understand it she is now basically uninsurable and they can drop her at any moment. In my opinion this should be illegal. If you work for a fortune 500 they can’t drop you. If you work for yourself they can.
She may or may not have the income to continue paying premium because she is sick. Counselors at her clinic say she should go get a job at a big company that has insurance because the only way to get medicare is to pay down your assets. So she spends every penny she and Dad have so she can get free healthcare and probably die anyway. All the while she never inteded or wanted to get Medicare but her insurance company dropped her so she has no other way to get care.
Sorry for the rant but this is freaking me out and I just can’t believe this is what happens to law abiding, tax paying business owners in America.
This is OT but relevant to post 7. BTW it’s frightening that now Rove is trying to tie support of Iraq to support of Unitary Executive Privilege. In other words secrecy keeps us safe from terrorist. If you don’t support giving up your rights you’re for the terrorists.
Josh Marshall has a post up that he calls an open letter to Senate Democrats. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..008830.php
Let’s truly make this an open letter to Senate Democrats and your house Democrat rep as well. I propose that those inclined print or PDF a copy, highlight the relevant sentences (approx 14) and mail or email a copy to your rep. I wonder if this could make a good (quick) roots project? I’ll be sending a copy to my reps (Kennedy, Kerry) but of course it would help if it went to those who voted against Iraq withdrawal.
I have a PDF made with highlights. Not sure how to get it into others hands if they are interested. I could email to someone if need be. Also I noted that what I highlighted would make a good LTE. I don’t suggest plagiarizing Josh but it could make a good jumping off point.
Back to lurking.
Lianne
“They” would be hard pressed to fashion a box for one as eclectic as me. But the point is made, the lidless eye of corporate/government is steadily sifting through the miutae of all. The message of public governance and private citizens is most powerful. Or as Warren G. Harding said, “A return to Normalcy.” There is, of course, no such word. But a speech impediment prevented him from saying, “normality.” As as our current President, The English Patient, is showing, if the President does it, then it is not illegal.
Even I can’t believe the layers of snark in this post.
Well, here’s how to let Hillary know what ya think:
hillpac at hillpac dot com.
Presumably, non-consitituents aren’t afforded an email entree to her Senate site, but the PAC would be listening, wouldn’t they?
A Privacy Bill of Rights? Hear hear for Hillary. Fine stuff, as far as it goes.
But how about we go one better and add a right of privacy to the Bill of Rights?
If the right can clamor for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, why don’t we clamor for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy? Not only will it make explicit what Roe v Wade says is implicit, but it makes sense in the face of identity theft, NSA spying, etc.
So while I’m mildly happy about this, we should recognize that it is just incremental Clintonism. I think that this is more of that small bore thinking that always strikes me as a rear-guard offense, fighting back while on the retreat from what this country should really stand for. All too predictably, Hillary’s idea is what you settle for, not what you propose as an opening position.
Personally my sense is that the current state of affairs would allow a bigger vision, chock full of bolder and better ideas. After six years of the clonw show, I’d bet that Americans would be excited to think about the future in a positive way again, with big goals and plans and dreams. And it falls to liberals to propose them. Otherwise, all we are doing is patchwork for the messes caused by conservatives. Aren’t we tired of that by now?
So Hil, if you’re reading this, go big. And don’t stop thinking about tomorrow. It’ll soon be here.
ReddHedd 24 – i followed your link over and found at the end:
LOL!
OT RE: The Sears Tower Seven.
They all look African-American to me. I have to admit that I was expecting to see people of Middle Eastern descent. What’s the scoop on their backgrounds?
Whew, this is super, Digby!
Ghostman, I hear you–we had the “Hillary” conversation at lunch, again. But, I do agree with Digby. The Republicans have abandoned the issue of privacy (among others) and I think there are millions of people of all political persuasions that want someone to fight again for it. Take it back. And, get people to stop and remember their history. But that’s another subject that brings on headaches…sigh.
Christy, you’re right about The Rude Pundit–it’s been interesting to mostly lurk around at various sites for the past 10 months or so. There IS a huge change in how the fevered swamp *g* is being perceived and reacted to. It seems to have really started a few months ago and the “old folks” are scared. Sort of 60’s redux.
“Worrying about whose name is on the legislation is, frankly, completely beside the point.”
Exactly, case in point – Murtha
41, Mr. Probst….black, and carriabean (sp?)…they are, at best, 3rd string players. If they were white guys they’d be out playing paint ball or some such. They are locals to Florida. I doubt if they even know HOW to construct a bomb. Wannabe’s, pure and simple.
Ghostman
Christy
I am glad you mentioned and linked to The Rude Pundit. Some people would no doubt object to certain aspects of his verbal style, but he speaks the truth in a powerful way. I was reading The Rude One before I discovered FDL; I came here for the first time because FDL was on The Rude Pundit’s blogroll.
By the way, Christy, Kommander Kos is on the Kosphone for you. He has your daily marching orders. You must obey.
I hope that this measure and others in later years will continue to provide an opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to lead from the US Senate. She truly has a chance to become one of the great US Senators in our history. I hope she embraces this path. Our next Democratic President would be lucky to have Hillary Clinton working in the US Senate to advance the progressive and reparative agenda. We’ll need all expert hands on-deck in order to right the ship of state from the plunder of the current masters, and Hillary’s in just the right place to help the next President accomplish that.
etc.
The sole reason that I never write Hillary off is because she’s still married to the greatest politician of all time. And I have little doubt that he’s got his hand in this. As always, he’s just ahead of the curve. More and more domestic spying programs keep coming to light. Today it’s bank records. Who knows what it’ll be tomorrow? It’s only a matter of time before some episode of horrid abuse comes to light. And when it does, Hillary will be able to say that it was just the kind of thing she was worried about. It’s nice to see the Big Dog at work again.
EPU at 19, I am in total agreement with the omniscient one that Hil’s framing is vulnerable. It must suck to be omniscient, how depressing.
I’m thinking Hillary’s take on privacy is one of those one-way security mirror things:
From the NY Sun, June 12, 2006
Bilderberg guests from previous years include Senator Clinton and a former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, both of whom who are considering running for president in 2008. President Clinton also hunkered down with the club one year. One of the most famous rumors associated with the Bilderberg is that it “anointed” Mr. Clinton in the spring of 1992
It was rumoured she was in Ottawa for the meeting in June.
Kathryn at 40 — that was my favorite part. I almost snarfed water all over my keyboard laughing. (Man, did I need that laugh, too…)
I want a Kosphone!
ditto, neurophius. The Rude One also introduced me to FDL, god bless him. In so many ways he’s the First Amendment in action.
Juan Cole at Informed Comment wrote well about the Miami 7 http://www.juancole.com/2006/0…..t-saw.html
Hillary is poison imho……
And no privacey does not equal liberty.
Liberty requires self resposnibility.
Privacy requires secrecy.
Frank Probst at 41 — my understanding from the very sketchy news reports thus far is that the TeeVee journalists have labeled them “militant black muslims.” Beyond that, they apppear to have lived in an economically depressed neighborhood (at least as shown from the TeeVee news location shots) and some were quite young, in their teens. Good for the FBI for infiltrating the group — excellent police work.
Boy, that whole “fighting terrorism isn’t a law enforcement issue” malarky just went shit out the window, didn’t it?
Democrats should be shouting it from their capital hilltops: Republicans are destroying your American Constitutional Right to Privacy. These rights are unequivocally guaranteed to all Americans. Republicans are working in goosestep to destroy your rights as an American.
neurophius at 46 — ROFL You know, the hilarious thing is, if you said to Markos that he needed to give Jane and I orders, he’d probably bust a gut laughing. *g* I know my husband did when I tried to explain the fuss to him. He said, “You are kidding me, right? Have they ever met you or Jane?” LOL
I’m a history geek, I know, but I think it’s rather breathtaking how the current crop of Repugs have completely lost sight of basic, traditional conservative principles (e.g., privacy, state’s rights, self determination, etc).
It’s an interesting situation. The rhetoric to bring them to power has been extremely successful, but it has caused them to forgo their fundamental principles. Greek tragedy, anyone?
AnnaNola–if worse comes to worse, your mother should be covered by COBRA insurance for 18 months. It’s not cheap, but I’m guessing her current insurance isn’t either (we own our own business as well). Won’t she be eligible for Medicare at 60? (Sorry, I know about COBRA but not when Medicare kicks in…)
Kos needs his own equivalent of the Bat Signal too.How am I ever to know when to rally and follow marching orders stuck way out here in Red State America?They don’t allow kosphones here.Damn them.
Medicare kicks in at 65 years old … 2 months away for me !
Christy at 24, this is what I love about the Rude One; “Siegel can lick the Rude Pundit’s scrotum.” Indeed.
TeddySanFran
I want a Kosphone!
how about the secret Kos handshake!
punaise at 64 — shhhhh….that’s a secret…
*g* (You guys are cracking me up. I think I’m just tired and punchy, though, so don’t let it go to your head…)
wrt to the Florida arrests, yesterday on Countdown, Pete Williams told Olbermann that while no crime had occurred yet, these guys were arrested for “bad thoughts.”
Unfortunately, the MSNBC transcripts for 6/22 are scrambled and I can’t pull up Countdown, but I swear that’s what closet-boy said. You’d think he’d be more worried about people getting arrested for “bad thoughts” because you know Little Pete’s had some himself!
Great post Digby. Privacy is the biggest issue the democrats should push. Our private information seems to be available to everyone except us. For example, I am in the Medical profession and try to stay on top of issues involving my mothers health. Because she has memory problems, she requested copies of test results so I could take a look at them and they wouldn’t give them to her. And they are HER results. What’s up with that?
Christy Hardin Smith says
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Frank Probst at 41 %u2014 my understanding from the very sketchy news reports thus far is that the TeeVee journalists have labeled them “militant black muslims.” Beyond that, they apppear to have lived in an economically depressed neighborhood (at least as shown from the TeeVee news location shots) and some were quite young, in their teens. Good for the FBI for infiltrating the group %u2014 excellent police work.
Boy, that whole “fighting terrorism isn’t a law enforcement issue” malarky just went shit out the window, didn’t it?
———————————————————-
Hmmmm. People who wear Star of David armbands usually don’t fit the label of “militant black Muslim”, in my (admittedly limited) experience. The whole thing looks more like a Dungeons-and-Dragons-gone-bad story that a genuine terrorist plot. I suppose we’ll eventually hear about prior criminal records and whether or not any of them had any real weapons to speak of, but this doesn’t strike me as something that merits the attention of the Attorney General.
(WAY off topic: News stories are already pointing out the group’s interest in religious symbology. I’ll give two snaps up to the first reporter who manages to somehow link this story to “The Da Vinci Code”.)
Jesus Christ. I hope I don’t get arrested for simply having bad thoughts. What about impure thoughts? Do those count?
Perhaps a Kos decoder ring…yeh, thats the ticket.
Also, more malarkey out the window, if the Floridians really ARE terrorists:
How’s that “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” thing working, W?
TeddySanFran says
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
wrt to the Florida arrests, yesterday on Countdown, Pete Williams told Olbermann that while no crime had occurred yet, these guys were arrested for “bad thoughts.”
Unfortunately, the MSNBC transcripts for 6/22 are scrambled and I can’t pull up Countdown, but I swear that’s what closet-boy said. You’d think he’d be more worried about people getting arrested for “bad thoughts” because you know Little Pete’s had some himself!
———————————————————-
I have to disagree. I know plenty of gay men who enthusiatically participate in gay sex, and yet have never shown any sort of evidence of any sort of thought process at all, good or bad.
Plano tex your 69
Depends what they are
We’re waiting….
No, I’m not a big Hillary fan. It’s obvious she has been very risk averse as far as real policy proposals since her health care debacle back in Bill’s day.
But to give credit where credit is due: she’s right this time and deserves support and encouragement.
And Digby, you’re right too. This should be a major plank in the Democratic platform.
Thanks for a great post!
Link to the Da Vinci Code: one of the young men was described as a devout Catholic … is the Pope planning to send submarines up the Potomac and seize Tom Delays house?
Another instance of why it’s bad that comment numbers shift: Plano tex’s “bad thoughts/impure thoughts” comment lost its 69!
*ilson46201 says:
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Link to the Da Vinci Code: one of the young men was described as a devout Catholic %u2026 is the Pope planning to send submarines up the Potomac and seize Tom Delays house?
———————————————————-
I’d pay a lot more to see that than I would to see Tom Hanks.
No matter, it all gets stirred and shaped into doughy pantloads by the Mighty Wurlitzer and slung like monkey poop onto the fearful public. Be afraid, be very afraid.
(But, don’t worry, we (the rethuglicans) are here to protect you.)
I’m with EPU @ 19 and op99 @ 50. The offenses against the constitution and existing bill of rights are monstrous enough.
Detentions without charges
Eavesdropping without warrants
disregard for treaty obligations we have made
I’m all for the things Hillary’s put up here, but why aim at the little stuff?
Teddy 76,
Im still seeing it here…is that impure?
Christy, Jane, Have you been hearing or reading
where Citizenspook has been dissing you and FDL?
Billmon…snoring…now I’m gonna be afraid to go to sleep :)
at times the numbering of comments at FDL seems intrinsically disordered …
Hi all. I am away but just checked in to the lake.Wow much as happened. As for the area in question where they are now saying the “black militant muslims” lived….they are NUTS….I know this area I have done alot of volunteer work there. This is THE POOREST neighborhood in So. Florida. This whole thing SMELLS like Rover dung plain and simple. The local news had some former Fed prosecutors on who BOTH said…this case is not only weak, but as soon as the defense gets a hold of this indictment, they will”literally blow it apart in a matter of minutes”….This whole thing is all a part of the outing of the latest shenanigans of the Bushanistas in reference to datamining anf NSA…..Monica (Ann Coulters twin) Crowley was pimping for Bush on CNN in a commentator disguise, she had on 2 Rovian terruh analysts(obvious ReTHUGS) who were spreading the new meme”without the NSA and financial psying, we would have never uncovered this plot”…Blah blah blah…BULLCRAP!
Flydog: concerning CitizenSpook — there’s an old Arabic saying : the dogs bark but the caravan moves on …
Citizenspook…isn”t that the MBLA organ?
*ilson 82, maybe someone should do a chaos theory study of FDL.
Flydog — for heaven’s sake, Jane’s mother died yesterday after a week in the hospital. I could give a flying fuck…
(Let me also amend this to say that any jackass who attacks someone during a week when their mother has been in the ICU and subsequently has passed away is the lowest life-form on the planet. Karl Rove’s scrotum has more character. For heaven’s sake — Jane’s mother DIED yesterday, you jackass. (And I don’t mean you, Flydog, I mean CitizenSpook, or the asshats at TNR, or all the crazy ass trolls, or whomever is just being a dick this week. I’ve had it.)
Hehe. Larry said “organ.” Hehehehe.
Christy, PLEASSE give Jane my best, I just read what happened. I feel so terrible.
Thanks
Leslie pipes up !
I think the moral of the story of this thread and TRex’s post/thread last night, is that we want to promote our framing independent of what the Republicans framing is. It’s not a prizefight where both sides have to get in the same ring (frame). It should be more like American Idol – we sing our song, they sing theirs; then open up those phone lines and see who wins. Should be us if we free our message from the constraints of their bullshit.
*ilson 12:55 p.m.
I am in accord with that remark.
It is beyond dispute that the intent of the Founders was that the private activities of citizens were to be held presumptively PRIVATE absent compelling showing of need for their breach, while at the same time the activities of PUBLIC officials were to be kept PUBLIC absent compelling showing of need for their being kept secret.
The prime “accomplishment” of the Bush administration will be the completion of the total inversion of this fundamental principle.
punaise, neurophius – right Bach at you.
Fine post, Digby. If we can separate the messenger from the message, I’m think a comprehensive Right to Privacy Act would be a good thing, in principle. It’s something most Americans would support, and, ideally, could be a vehicle for codifying rights that we would like to believe are protected by the Constitution but which, given the current Supreme Court, may not be secure. Recall that the “right of privacy” is not an explicit Bill of Rights provision; it was found to be in the “penumbra” of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, whatever that means. Abortion rights and laws protecting homosexual acts derive partly from this interpretation.
Then there are all of the privacy matters that are under seige by the Bush Administration’s assaults on the 4th Amendment. Perhaps a bill could be used to shine a light on those activities and put some limits on how far the government could go (not that the Pres would follow the law, or anything — FISA?).
Beyond these acts, there are plent of “privacy” issues I’d like to see codified. I resent the fact that my personal financial, contact and other information can be given/sold to other people without my express consent by corporations whose services I subscribe to. I resent that someone who uses/traffics in my personal information can do so with relative impunity.
Having said all this, would I trust the current Congress to legislate in these areas? Would I trust this sponsor, who came nowhere close to supporting Feingold’s censure motion, to manage this bill and decide on whether to accept compromises? Don’t think so, and there’s the rub.
BobbyG 93, excellent summary. I’m stealing it. (What’s that quote about good writers borrow, great writers steal? You just gotta steal from the best.)
Franco @ 84
My spidey-sense tells me they’re just gang-bangers who think they’re the new version of Tony Montana
#90
That is exactly correct. The Republicans punch and we counterpunch. That’s not the way to look at this. We need to begin to see the future landscape and start speaking to it.
That’s something we haven’t thought about in a long time. It’s why they say we have no new ideas (not that they have any, fergawdsake.) But the fact is that it is one of our defining features whikle their has always been moribund fogie-ism. We are liberals and progressives.
Extending the right to privacy is a new challenge in a world with increasing technological capability. We need to start talking about this.
And this isn’t the only “new” progressive issue we need to start discussing. stay tuned.
Well said, Digby. Another arrow for the privacy quiver is the right to medical and genetic privacy. Threats in this area around employment and healthcare are profound.
Leslie in CA 94 – huh? I haven’t been following the bouncing thread-ball.
Can’t. stop. laughing.
Whew!Chuckle, The Rude one is in rare form.My kind of fellow.I especially love his Karl Roves Leather Slave series. Man! He’s one sick puppy.
I’m snickering just thinking about it.
Leslie 96 -
Be my guest. I studied the 4th Amendment in considerable detail in grad school. Some stuff still online from my draft thesis:
http://www.bgladd.com/drugwar/chapter4.htm
Digby,
A major problem is most americans sadly think that the only spying etc., going on is directed at “terrorists” thus…not them.
How can we overcome this?
Gattaca !
Anyone else think the Miami arrests were timed to shove the disclosures about international currency transfers off the news? After all, they’ve had an informant inside this pathetic little group for months. In fact, the only “Al Quaeda” connection was working for the government. This was, as far as appears now, a sting targeted against a fringe sect/cult/brand new religion. (I’m never quite sure what the difference is.) What drew the government’s attention to them, pray tell, since this group had no cash and no weapons? Karate practice, perhaps? Oh, and BTW, this would not be the first time the government has prosecuted people for having bad thoughts. Apparently the government has dispensed with any requirement that there actually be an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Oh, and you’ll all be happy to know that Bill Bennett’s radio callers were all mad at the New York Times for the revelation about bank records because, you know, this is war and we’re all used to being searched at the airport and yada yada yada. Soledad O’Brien didn’t call bullshit but then, she never does.
BarbaraB – international currency transfer news ?? link??
Re: Framing the message
scarecrow 95
“Recall that the “”right of privacy” is not an explicit Bill of Rights provision”
____________
Gotta respectfully disagree.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…”
These specific words were written with the intent to confer a presumptive general right to privacy. The citizen was not to have the burden of proof of “proving” that specific act or attribute x, y, or z was covered.The burden of proof was and still properly should be the other way around.
TeddySanFran…39
I’ve tried to send La Hil several emails to no avail. All I get back is that since I don’t vote in her area, I’m basically of no consequence. Silly, I think. For if she really wants to be president and runs (I think she already is running obviously), we all will be in ‘her district’. And to think I wasted time when I lived in the City getting letters printed in the Chron. and the old SF Examiner in support of her future possible presidential candidacy. No fool like an old, young, or in-between fool, I suppose.
new Taylor thread (hmmm, sounds sartorial) – just (n)inja nick of time
Eureka–
Government tapping bank records
hth
thx
I was shocked to receive a letter from the Department of Orthopedic Surgery this week that turned out to be a fundraising appeal from the University Foundation at UCSF. Even though it was on Department letterhead — thus prompting me to open it, rather anxiously, thinking it was FROM MY DOCTOR!! — and was signed by the Department head, it was clearly a fundraising solicitation.
I had several long conversations yesterday with University and University Foundation folks about this letter. Never did they think that they were exploiting my relationship with my doctor my writing to me on his Department’s letterhead. New to them: the anxiety I felt at receiving this letter, and the anger I felt when I realized my relationship with my doctor was being used to solicit money from me.
The assurances I got regarding HIPAA rang hollow, as I’ve read recent reports that HIPAA violators get compliance letters, but no penalties. Anyone who has ever worked in an audited environment knows that penalties for non-compliance must exceed safeguard costs in order for a rational bureaucracy to implement them. Absent penalties, cost considerations compel non-compliance.
I was also told that I had consented to this “data-sharing” when I signed the HIPAA form, without which signature, of course, medical treatment would have been impossible. What my callers found compelling was my point that the shared data point, my address, while compulsory on the medical form, was entirely unnecessary to my medical treatment. Why does my doctor or my physical therapist need my address? Surely not for a home visit. In the era of “render co-payment before services,” surely not to send a bill. So, an unnecessary data point (my address) had been collected for no reason, and then given to another organization — the University Foundation — who had a use for it, the fundraising solicitation!
We’ve achieved Total Information Awareness, for whoever wants to pay for the information. We’ve got to return to an era of “that’s my bidness, not yours.” Maybe Hillary’s effort is a step in the right direction.
MYOB
Digby–
Good post! I particularly like the focus on consumer rights. This cuts across a number of issues–health care, gasoline prices, envirnonmental issues–and has the additional benefit of potentially attracting the few remaining Naderites out there.
I do think we should be careful to handle the issue as the republicans have done with, say, English as official language–take the non-controversial aspects of the issue (”Resolved: privacy is a good thing”) and MAKE the other guys vote AGAINST it. They didn’t let a little thing like the Defense of Marriage Act get in the way of a sham vote on a constitutional ammendment, did they? If the other side says we already have privacy protections, we say “Yes, but we must protect against activist judges.” See how simple that is?
As for Hillary, I’m as tepid as the next fdler, but Jesus Christ, haven’t we got better things to do than NOT get behind a good idea because we don’t like some of the other ideas or actions of the messenger? Just because I compliment a woman’s outfit doesn’t mean I have to or want to marry her.
Hillary is a bright, competent, hard-working Democrat who I hope continues to serve her constituents as a United States Senator until President Al Gore appoints her Secratery of Health and Human Services to implement universal health care, thus causing the death of Harry and Louise and several insurance executives, but saving the lives of millions of others.
ESArk — My profound apologies for being a total technoklutz, but I can’t do links. They are on my list of things to learn to do, though. The details on the “bank records” are contained in either the NYT story or the WaPo story about the NYT story. The records at issue (at least some of them) were international wire transfers, and there’s a serious concern that the financial intermediary involved is going to be in BIG trouble with the international (non-terrorist) customers who use its services. It seems they value confidentiality. One of many ironies here is that genuine terrorists long since stoped using this system for transfers. Way to go, BushCo.
I wanna live THIS universe EPU *g*:
We already have a Bill of Rights the purpose of which is (not was, is), among other things, to protect our privacy.
. . .
We don’t need MORE privacy rights, we need the ones the constitution already provides enforced.
Exactly. More legislation ignores the issue of signing statements and secret Exec orders and a DOJ run amok – all of which are operating independent of any Constitutional controls, safeguards, checks, balances, etc.
Adding more legislation when you can’t competently deal with what you have is like taking fertility treatments when you can’t feed the kids you have. Congress needs to quit screwing around for a bit and return this to where it is a nation of laws before spinning wheels in the mud writing NEW laws.
Christy 57 -that was my first thought too. OTOH, we haven’t yet seen if they are all going to be taken handed over into secret military detention with no habeas yet by the FLA USA ;-)
I have no call on whether the round up is PR, good investigation work, appropriate caution, or misplaced clampdowns on grousers. I do tend to feel a teeny bit better that we might actually find out which IF it is all handled like a regular criminal proceeding. Evidence, consitutional safeguards, attorneys, that kind of piffle that Padilla trashed.
The down side for ROver – he can’t support his “we HAVE to treat this as an enemy combatant situation and torture in military secret” and SIMULTANEOUSLY get his uptick PR about what a good job everyone is doing.
I’m pretty willing to believe that some people DID did do a very good job. But a Justice Dept policy of handing suspects over to the military and disappearing the surveilled into secret detention for torture interrogation does tend to shake that faith just a bit.
It’ll be awhile before I buy more pom poms.
BarbaraB — for links here, all you have to do is copy and paste right into the comments box and it goes live for you once you post it. :)
Does the Rude Pundit truly have that much fun EVERY weekend?
Christy — Really? I’ve been afraid I would screw everything up by not closing the link. Copy and paste I can do, although I would be embarrassed to admit how long it took me to learn. Thanks so much!
Mary @ 118
ROFLMAO
The inimitable Helen Thomas asking Tony Snow about the banking records story:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..html#a8827
BarbaraB – Thanks, I need a closed linkin’ lesson as well. Read that article late last night. I hope you are right and the big whigsters are in a tangle. Difficult to believe they are not aware of this.
TeddySanFran,
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/hipaa/
That really angers me. When this law recently got more teeth, a couple of years ago I think, we were told how terribly high the fines were for non-compliance. And now this happens to you? No.
Also found this:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/consumer_rights.pdf
What I cannot understand is why DC Democrats often don’t GET it. Some blog today (sorry, I don’t remember which one) said that Dianne Feinstein (a senator in the very same state as Barbara Boxer — go figure) was STILL arguing that Dems are NOT “cutting and running.” She plays right into Karl Rove’s paws.
Is she really a GOPer, like Lieberman? Is she really stupid? Wish I knew. But either way, I will not vote for her again, so a Californian Ned Lamont better come up before her next election, because she will not get my vote.
Shell – Find someone better first. I understand your frustration. My castaway vote for Boxer and Feinstien always felt like waste, until I moved home and found Pryor and Lincon, with a wretch.
Thank you Digby!!
The last few days have seen some the most thoughtful and detailed ideas I have seen in ages!! And on other blogs too. Could it be that we all operate better when under pressure? Brains are storming and ideas are flourishing at lightening speed.
Thank you Digby, Thank you Christy,Thank you everyone!! Love and thanks to Jane. In all the heartbreak I find inspiration through you.
Eureka –
LOL. Believe it or not, I love Eureka Springs. And this is the truth — I spent 2 of my honeymoon days (1 billion years ago) there. But I get what you are saying.
And I am working — starting NOW — to get someone to run against Feinstein in the primary next time.
Late to the party and I know there’s another thread open, BUT I read Hil’s privacy proposal the other day and was dumbfounded that there was nothing about medical privacy, end of life decision privacy, choice privacy, etc.
Am I missing something here? I know that these are wedge issues and she’d rather ignore them, but how can anyone talk about privacy and leave these so glaringly out?
Shell – I believe, sorry we did not meet here or in SF along the way. LOL perhaps we did. On your billionth anniversary err second honeymoon lets all meet for lunch :)
So they can and have been spying on bank records, but why after almost five years they can’t tell us who benefited at Wall street on 9/11?
ShrillHil. NeoLib. anything good from hil is a calculated play. what with the anti-gore protest today, it appears karl is doing a little moonlighting for ShrillHil. not to be trusted.
Eureka: You got it!
Bobby G and EPU I hear you!
The forth ammendments been trashed by three crime waves – Watergate, Iran/contra and now, Yellowgate. The Dems could whip up a killa fear campaign on this trashing of original privacy rights by a gang of serial criminals.
Go law-and-order on their ass! Three strikes and yr out! Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!
‘ Clipper chip’ Hillary is all wrong for this particular issue and she’s freezing out the roots. Fuck that bs. We don’ need no steenkin’ ‘name’ candidates. We just need Digby to keep digging. ( Love to J)
martha
thanks for the thought. As I understand it they have the right to cancel the policy. There is a chance they won’t but I bet if the can they will or they will raise the rates beyond what she can afford. She and Dad have their own business so she is not really leaving the group so COBRA would not apply. She would stay in the group but the either the group’s rates will go sky high or they won’t renew the group’s coverage. Then when they try to go to a new company the same will happen. We will see how it goes but I think that if the insurance companies can get away with getting rid of you while you are sick they will.
Privacy is the key — change from “pro-choice” to “pro-privacy” — Then you’re broadening the audience to include those concerning with all aspects of privacy — wiretapping, etc., and abortion, birth control and the Schiavo cases.
The Dem. slogan should be “Security, Privacy and Justice.”
Hillary would be doing her job by asking for impeachment of Bushco because they have broken laws guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Asking for new laws to protect old ones broken everyday by fascists isn’t progressive…it’s stupid.
The messenger IS part of the message.
Hillary is Triangulator Extraordinnaire; second only to her DLC husband, whose charm and frequent honesty she totally lacks.
Whoever wrote that comment about (paraphrased) “we already HAVE privacy guarantees in the Bill of Rights, so we don’t need a new Hillary-approved privacy rights rights bill — grandstanding pabulum” was dead bang right.
Stop being so grateful for Vichy Democrat stale crumbs. Hillary is doing anti-Constitution Repugs a BIG favor by ignoring the bedrock laws that exist (and are being raped daily) by introducing her latest version of anti-flag-burning or music-lyric-bashing. Whatever makes her Redder and more palatable to gung-ho war mongers. Who would never support Clinton if their life and souls depended on it.
The messenger DOES carry the message content. And if we should give Hillary an anonymity pass on this one — the argument that this issue is too important to tar with the proponent’s lousy record — then we need to ask her why she and her NY buddy Schumer worked to shit on Russ Feingold’s resolution. Great message-bearing, Hills.