Invasion of privacy
Drudge links to a fascinating story about cell phone records being put up for sale, no questions asked. It's an immoral practice, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is rightly proposing legislation to ban it.
But soft! Isn't this the selfsame man whose agents, just this past July, absconded with the private credit history of one Michael Steele, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate? Why, I do believe it is! Apparently Chucky Schumer sees a big need for privacy when the one potentially invading it is a private citizen or business. But Chucky Schumer apparently believes "no controlling legal authority" (in Al Gore's infamous words) should tell him, big-shot Democrat senator, what to do or not do with others' private information.
Keep an eye on your cell phone records and your credit histories, ladies and gentlemen.
SRS
But soft! Isn't this the selfsame man whose agents, just this past July, absconded with the private credit history of one Michael Steele, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate? Why, I do believe it is! Apparently Chucky Schumer sees a big need for privacy when the one potentially invading it is a private citizen or business. But Chucky Schumer apparently believes "no controlling legal authority" (in Al Gore's infamous words) should tell him, big-shot Democrat senator, what to do or not do with others' private information.
Keep an eye on your cell phone records and your credit histories, ladies and gentlemen.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 3:34 AM
7 Comments:
"Chuck's only involvement was to report this matter to the authorities immediately after first learning about it."
Schumer was not caught red-handed with this data, nor is there any sign he requested it, let alone did this himself.
His staffers committed identity theft. Don't confuse that with his own actions. I don't have to tell you what people do in the interest of helping Bush ;)
Dear Jon,
I've never said that Cheney and Bush shouldn't be considered responsible for Plame's outing (if that's what you're referring to). Congressmen, senators, and presidents all should be held responsible, to an extent, for the kind of people they employ as staffers, aides, etc., as well as the actions those subordinates take.
But "outing" Plame wasn't a crime, because she was not undercover, and hadn't been for more than five years; and the Bush administration wasn't even the first to divulge that she was CIA... which means they didn't "out her" at all.
If perchance you are referring to "the atmosphere of torture" that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft et al created, leading (of course) to Abu Ghraib's most recent abuses, I don't think that what happened at Abu Ghraib was all that bad, except from a PR standpoint, and even if it was, Bush and administration principals can hardly be blamed for something that was done by people they had never met, under the authority of people they had never met, in violation of known rules, a third of the way around the world.
Schumer, on the other hand, employed and interacted with these people, who committed a federal offense that, had it not been discovered, may have helped Schumer. If they broke his rules and federal law, they're not the sort of people he should have hired. He deserves, at least, to be voted out of the Senate by his constituents.
I wasn't referring to any particular event, just shedding light on the idea that the people that work for you in a political campaign are a) their own people b) often overzealous in your name.
But it's cute seeing all the potentially incriminating things that came to the surface when I was vague :)
If you think Schumer should be voted out because of the actions of his staffers that he was completely open with, fine. But hey, you'd think he should be voted out regardless of his actions, let's be honest here.
I'm excited you stuck around long enough to post two comments. Do I have a third regular reader (first outside my immediate family)? I'm glad you were happy about the "potentially incriminating things" I came up with, but if you've ever seen a newspaper or news tv program or left-wing blog (and I'm sure from your comments that at least one of those is the case), then you know I didn't really come up with them, Joe Wilson, Howard Dean, etc. did.
It's true that I wouldn't vote for Schumer for any office higher than class clown, but I think it's important to note that when congressional Republicans are seen to be associated with the appearance of the hint of the suggestion of a whiff of ill-advised behaviour, many of their colleagues are quick to throw them overboard to forfend "even the appearance of impropriety" - a badly noncontextual Biblical reference. I wish Democrats, at least the voters, would do something similar. Yet it seems that in places like New York (the city), Los Angeles, San Francisco, almost all of New England, and a few others, they'd pull the lever for anyone with a "D" after their name, no matter what they'd done.
On a side note: it's sad that a lot of the people who just vote Democrat because they've been doing it for decades don't realize that Republicans these days are just like the Democrats of the 60's, more so than the Democrats of today are. JFK cut taxes. He and LBJ both supported our involvement in the Vietnam War. Republicans today do similar things, and mimic Democrats' rampant profligacy with public funds. So why vote Democrat? I guess if one is anti-war, or if one is homosexual - but then again, Andrew Sullivan voted for Bush. And he's the last person you'd think would like Bush.
Dear Jon,
I almost forgot: you said Sen. Schumer reported the [credit history] matter to the authorities, but I'm pretty sure one of the culprits did that herself.
Thanks again for reading.
I say we start a message board here on this post :)
It's true that the parties have shifted since the 60's, and indeed, always have changed with the times. Some of Nixon's policies seem ownright liberal compared to Bush.
But I think it's important to contextualize the priorities with the times. Not to say which are right or wrong, but just to shed some light on them.
There was a time when people thought desegregation was an awful idea. Far from admitting that segregation was unconstitutional (which is clearly was), these people put up a stiff fight. These people represented the "socially conservative" class in America, and they were wrong.
The Democratic party has changed, certainly. But it is still the party most in line with being "socially liberal". For someone who is a minority of any kind or seems themselves as unequal (women are still paid less), the Democrats' message is fairly compelling.
Not that we need to get into if you a) agree with socially liberal people b) think Democrats truly are helping these people c) think Republicans are actually better for these people. Right or wrong, Democrats have honed their message to the disadvantaged.
If they ever win another presidency, I'll say it's not only good strategy, it's what representational democracy should be about, helping everyone, but focusing on those who need it most.
What do you mean "still"? Prior to the 1970's, the Democratic party was not, in any decade, friendlier to minorities and civil rights than the Republican party. Even the "civil rights" positions they hold now are irrelevant to racial minorities (homosexual rights) or harmful to them (voucherlessness and "affirmative action" - though they have won the propaganda battle on affirmative action). For my own writing on the odd relationship between the Democratic party and African-Americans, read the post here:
http://strongrightstraight.blogspot.com/2005/10/top-story-steve-gilliard-is-black.html
And be sure to read it all the way to the end.
I haven't particularly addressed the issue of women supporting Democrats, because a much slighter majority of them do so, but the particular issue you raised is worth discussing. If you look at statistics that take into account things like education, experience, continuity of employment, and differentiates between the different educational degrees and different career fields, you find that the difference between a woman's pay and a man's pay in the same circumstances is insignificant, and (here's the kicker) actually favors women! So if you have a hundred women in a certain age group with a particular degree, working in a particular field with a certain number of years continuous experience, and a hundred men with all the same things, it's a good bet the women make more.
It's actually silly to think that all else is equal, and women are being paid 75% as much as men. No company could survive long in a competitive environment without the kind of management that would headhunt equally qualified women for a particular job, and pay them 80% of what a man would be paid. That would do wonders for the companies profit margin, if you saved 15-20% of your labor costs without a decline in productivity!
Your statistics may show women vs. men of identical level of education, or something like that, but do they take into account the dozens of other factors that may affect the individuals' pay?
If your point is that blacks and, to a lesser extent, Jews, Hispanics, and women, all see Democrats as more appealing candidates, I guess that's obvious. I can't argue with that. I guess my point is that you seem to see them as more appealing candidates too, and that's something I'd like to address. They help only themselves and a few of the super-rich, and "artists" that no one would spend their own money on, and other special-interest groups like that. The poor are better helped by a stronger, freer economy. I could go on forever about why all lower- and middle-income earners, and all the unemployed should all vote, not just for Republicans, but for the most conservative of Republicans. But I must stop. I have other things to do in my life.
P.S. That message board thing sounds like a great idea. The trouble is, I have no idea how to do that. If you care to explain it to me, I might take you up on that.
Post a Comment
<< Home