Unfortunately, it is not a joke. He has not pointed out some funny event, nor effected some bi- partisan agreement of significance. No, it is merely one of those ubiquitous 'finger point' of recognition, allowing others to attribute an acceptable level of political righteousness. One can experience similar behavior in the entertainment industry. But the message is---anyone who points like this is surely truthful and confident in his actions. The consummate politician. A man to be trusted.
But no confusion here. Nothing this man does could be honored under the banner of humor.
He is a pure player and a dancer in the political theater of the absurd, ought to be considered dangerous, and banished from all forms of political theater.
Considered a democratic reformer for at least some period during his career, Senator Joe Lieberman is the same man who endorsed John McCain's position on the War on Terrorism. And his participation in other examples of revelatory 'changing of ones political position' continues to haunt the turns and narrowness of the legislative road. Flip-flopping was invented for Joe Lieberman.
There is a particularly odious whining quality to his voice, giving the impression it is a struggle for him to grant his precious time to important issues. One would not wish to bother the Senator.
And from Matt Stoller published in in 2006 from MyDemocracy we have this observation about what these important issues might entail:
'A cornerstone of the modern campaign finance system is disclosure. Everyone agrees on disclosure, from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats. Old industrial political machines used to simply pay cash for votes, and this kind of corruption weakened democracy and allowed evil government activities to flourish. Joe knows this, he was the Attorney General of Connecticut. So the low simmering scandal - Joe Lieberman's failure to disclose $387,000 funneled through the petty cash account in campaign spending during the primary - is odd. That's almost a tenth of what he spent in the primary, and he's been hanging his hat onto the fact that the petty cash journal can be kept private.
Until today, it looked like he was going to keep the matter seedy but quiet. Thanks to some good reporting, though, it looks like Lieberman's $387,000 slush fund is both illegal and that he's been lying about where the money went. Mary E. O'Leary in the New Haven Register has the story. What happened on the Lieberman campaign is both illegal and weirdly incompetent.'
Thanks to these fine journalists for pursuing a not-so-popular story.
Now, our good Senator is introducing legislation which, like a significant portion of other legislation---says one thing while seemingly promoting the opposite----will effectively allow the Executive branch a 'kill switch' for US access to the Internet in times of national disaster. Senate Bill 3480.
The definition of 'national disaster' most certainly contains elements of subjectivity. Plenty of comparisons abound. Just the fact that Senator Lieberman is the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would be impetus enough to qualify for such subjectivity. And possibly a subjective rendering of removing power from one whose motives are in question.
Certainly, any discussion about 'national disaster' has not resounded with objectivity. Was 911 a national disaster? How about Hurricane Katrina? Gulf Oil Spill and subsequent destruction of eco-systems in the region, including increasing human disease and death? Shut down the Internet in all these instances? Or, just if we are attacked? And, attacked with weapons or a financial attack through computer re-configurations and the like? When do we shut it down? Why shut it down at all?
In the bill's defense, Lieberman, Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., and Senator Tom Carper, D-Del., issued the following statement Tuesday about the Internet shut down in Egypt and pending cyber-security legislation that would protect the U.S. from cyber attacks. And simply by passing S. 3480 will allow, nay, create a perfect path assuring our citizens cyber-security. Or so we are led to believe.
Here is their clarifying statement:
“Our bill already contains protections to prevent the President from denying Americans access to the Internet - even as it provides ample authority to ensure that those most critical services that rely on the Internet are protected. And, even though experts question whether anyone can technically ‘shut down’ the Internet in the United States, we will ensure that any legislation that moves in this Congress contains explicit language prohibiting the President from doing what President Mubarak did."
Yet, the language of the proposed bill will do just that. As Keith Olbermann used to say, "that man is an idiot!"
Stay tuned. Lieberman's precious Patriot Act will soon undergo the provincial touch of a permanent etching into our legal landscape. No doubt our dear Senator will have a hand in assuring this back-step from Democratic principles. Apparently, he has much work to complete before being soon tossed on the heap of irrelevance.
In the spirit of adding some more compelling concerns regarding Senate Bill 3480---a few more voices:
Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet expresses a clear message with his comment, “The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security.
"Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”
One concerning area of our legislative process is that the laws (unless repealed) continue on through various administrations. One wonders what GW Bush might have done with an Internet kill switch.
Probably shut down everything except the maps of his Crawford Ranch, now for sale along with his book, Decision Points, which further indemnifies Switzerland's decision to arrest the former president should he set foot on their soil.
Lieberman's inevitable book may raise a few eyebrows, as well.
Comments