Why have I done this?
I was signing up for an account so I could post a comment non-anonymously on somebody else's blog, when suddenly the process grabbed me by the throat.
"You will now create a blog." Click....whirr. "YES. I-WILL-CREATE-A-BLOG." Click.....whirr.
I got ahold of this parody song called "I Saw George Bush Tapping Santa's Phone." And I played it on the air.
About an hour later, my boss got this email, into which I will jump periodically with my obsevations:
Dear Steve,
Not long ago I wrote to you and expressed concern that recent newspaper reports indicated that W??? would be leaving the area. However now I must say that your departure can't come any too soon for me. It wasn't enough for you to just do what you do best … play the old songs; you and your fellow broadcasters have to delude yourselves into believing that because you have a live mike in your face, you have something of editorial value to say.
(I like that "editorial value". It reduces the issues at hand to the level of mere rhetoric. And, as you'll see as you read on, I didn't - according to the letter writer - SAY anything. Actually, I did, but either I didn't bring it off well, or he wasn't listening to what I was saying - all he heard was the song. Not paying attention, which is interesting in the sense of the details he gives about his background later in the email. You paid this man's salary.)
It would be easy for someone like myself to say the "musical ownership" of radio stations and their respective formats is stupid; because to me it makes no sense.
Yeah. What you said. This statement is stupid; because to me it makes no sense.
However I am confident that in the broadcast industry there is a clear justification for such actions. Every business and industry has its peculiarities and such lesser know factors often make the difference between the success and failure of the organizations. Because of this reality I avoid spouting off about "all the idiots around me who never do anything right;" after all, maybe if I knew what they knew, I'd make the same decision that they made.
Uh....so they know their business better than I do, and I should just shut up, right?
Wrong. If the President is breaking the law, which appears to be the case, that is my business. I MAKE it my business, it's my business because I say it is, and fuck you thoroughly if you don't like it.
Just now Eddie Garcia played a stupid song about "I saw George Bush tapping Santa's phone". Now it's not like I ever thought Eddie was the sharpest knife in the drawer,
(waall thank yew vury much four yer seport.)
(he would do well to talk less and play more records);
This is a typical thing that people say if you do one thing that pisses them off. I play at LEAST the same amount of music as anyone else, and a lOT more than the morning show.
but that was the breaking point for me. I spent many years in US Foreign Counterintelligence working with Iranians and Libyans … it was dirty work and I am thrilled to be out of it and hope to remain as far away from it as possible. However it is also necessary work that keeps people like loud-mouthed DJs free to run their mouths irresponsibly.
Ah. So my government paid you to listen to things and to analyze data. Funny. Because going into the song I said, 'Hope you had a merry Christmas, and please, have an impeachy-keen new year. And you didn't hear that, because obviously, if you had, you'd have shit pink bricks. You'd have quoted me, and since I brought up the "I" word, we would doubtlessly heard the sad tale of the prevarications resultant from the scourge of the Clenis.
There are powerful efforts that are active right now and their goal is (among other things) to silence "trash" radio stations that play rock and roll. This is not my opinion, this is a fact!
Prove it. But first, you might explain what the hell you're talking about.
The interesting thing about truth is that it requires no endorsement to maintain its status; if something is true, our believing it or not believing it cannot change its stature. Either OJ Simpson did it or he didn't do it! Whether or not a jury believes it or a judge believes it or I believe it does not and cannot alter what actually happened!
And this statement is offered in reference to?
For the record, what George Bush has done is not a problem for me; in fact I am thrilled. It is also nothing that wasn't done by previous presidents such as Clinton and Carter.
(see footnote -ed)
No, I do not worry that someone is illegally tapping my phone … my life isn't nearly interesting enough to justify anyone's time.
IN OTHER WORDS: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." This is cowardice of the most contemptible sort. It is unpatriotic, unAmerican and subversive. A person such as this who refuses to stand up for the values we are taught this country represents has no place here. This person should leave, and I will contribute money toward his passage. This is an individual who is willing to surrender his freedom in exchange for a promise of security. This is a person willingly victimized by a protection racket. This is a person who chooses to cower in fear and place blind trust in the Government to defend him from the "bad ole ter'rists", blind, deaf and dumb while the Government shows itself to be the very enemy it claims to defend against.
However, tapping phones is incredibly easy and private investigators do it illegally all the time. People should be more concerned about abuses such as that. We all spend a great deal of time and money trying to protect our computers and networks from viruses and hackers that are literally trying to break into our lives and steal our money and identities. That my friend is a far greater threat that anything that the NSA might consider … but where is the outrage?
And here, we see the typical attempt to change the subject. I guess Bill Clinton's lies about what he did with his dick don't serve the cause this time.)
I resent radio personalities that use their microphones to spread opinions about which they know little if anything. I've enjoyed most of what you guys have done … but no more. I have Direct Satellite here at our office and that contains XM satellite radio stations to meet every need. They don't play stupid commercials and they don't develop diarrhea of the mouth.
OOO! Satellite radio! That works; you can't blame him for playing that card. I remember when I was pissed off at the cable company once in Ohio and I told them I was going to get a satellite dish. I tell you, it was like I'd threatened to rape their firstborn daughter. Whatever it was that was pissing me off, they fixed it the next morning.
(writer's name and email addy removed by management as a condition of my receiving a copy of the letter)
Footnote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
4: Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
Another tactic conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also done so. For example, on the December 21 edition of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant."
But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release .
From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt Drudge selectively cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve " the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. " That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain " the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
"You will now create a blog." Click....whirr. "YES. I-WILL-CREATE-A-BLOG." Click.....whirr.
I got ahold of this parody song called "I Saw George Bush Tapping Santa's Phone." And I played it on the air.
About an hour later, my boss got this email, into which I will jump periodically with my obsevations:
Dear Steve,
Not long ago I wrote to you and expressed concern that recent newspaper reports indicated that W??? would be leaving the area. However now I must say that your departure can't come any too soon for me. It wasn't enough for you to just do what you do best … play the old songs; you and your fellow broadcasters have to delude yourselves into believing that because you have a live mike in your face, you have something of editorial value to say.
(I like that "editorial value". It reduces the issues at hand to the level of mere rhetoric. And, as you'll see as you read on, I didn't - according to the letter writer - SAY anything. Actually, I did, but either I didn't bring it off well, or he wasn't listening to what I was saying - all he heard was the song. Not paying attention, which is interesting in the sense of the details he gives about his background later in the email. You paid this man's salary.)
It would be easy for someone like myself to say the "musical ownership" of radio stations and their respective formats is stupid; because to me it makes no sense.
Yeah. What you said. This statement is stupid; because to me it makes no sense.
However I am confident that in the broadcast industry there is a clear justification for such actions. Every business and industry has its peculiarities and such lesser know factors often make the difference between the success and failure of the organizations. Because of this reality I avoid spouting off about "all the idiots around me who never do anything right;" after all, maybe if I knew what they knew, I'd make the same decision that they made.
Uh....so they know their business better than I do, and I should just shut up, right?
Wrong. If the President is breaking the law, which appears to be the case, that is my business. I MAKE it my business, it's my business because I say it is, and fuck you thoroughly if you don't like it.
Just now Eddie Garcia played a stupid song about "I saw George Bush tapping Santa's phone". Now it's not like I ever thought Eddie was the sharpest knife in the drawer,
(waall thank yew vury much four yer seport.)
(he would do well to talk less and play more records);
This is a typical thing that people say if you do one thing that pisses them off. I play at LEAST the same amount of music as anyone else, and a lOT more than the morning show.
but that was the breaking point for me. I spent many years in US Foreign Counterintelligence working with Iranians and Libyans … it was dirty work and I am thrilled to be out of it and hope to remain as far away from it as possible. However it is also necessary work that keeps people like loud-mouthed DJs free to run their mouths irresponsibly.
Ah. So my government paid you to listen to things and to analyze data. Funny. Because going into the song I said, 'Hope you had a merry Christmas, and please, have an impeachy-keen new year. And you didn't hear that, because obviously, if you had, you'd have shit pink bricks. You'd have quoted me, and since I brought up the "I" word, we would doubtlessly heard the sad tale of the prevarications resultant from the scourge of the Clenis.
There are powerful efforts that are active right now and their goal is (among other things) to silence "trash" radio stations that play rock and roll. This is not my opinion, this is a fact!
Prove it. But first, you might explain what the hell you're talking about.
The interesting thing about truth is that it requires no endorsement to maintain its status; if something is true, our believing it or not believing it cannot change its stature. Either OJ Simpson did it or he didn't do it! Whether or not a jury believes it or a judge believes it or I believe it does not and cannot alter what actually happened!
And this statement is offered in reference to?
For the record, what George Bush has done is not a problem for me; in fact I am thrilled. It is also nothing that wasn't done by previous presidents such as Clinton and Carter.
(see footnote -ed)
No, I do not worry that someone is illegally tapping my phone … my life isn't nearly interesting enough to justify anyone's time.
IN OTHER WORDS: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." This is cowardice of the most contemptible sort. It is unpatriotic, unAmerican and subversive. A person such as this who refuses to stand up for the values we are taught this country represents has no place here. This person should leave, and I will contribute money toward his passage. This is an individual who is willing to surrender his freedom in exchange for a promise of security. This is a person willingly victimized by a protection racket. This is a person who chooses to cower in fear and place blind trust in the Government to defend him from the "bad ole ter'rists", blind, deaf and dumb while the Government shows itself to be the very enemy it claims to defend against.
However, tapping phones is incredibly easy and private investigators do it illegally all the time. People should be more concerned about abuses such as that. We all spend a great deal of time and money trying to protect our computers and networks from viruses and hackers that are literally trying to break into our lives and steal our money and identities. That my friend is a far greater threat that anything that the NSA might consider … but where is the outrage?
And here, we see the typical attempt to change the subject. I guess Bill Clinton's lies about what he did with his dick don't serve the cause this time.)
I resent radio personalities that use their microphones to spread opinions about which they know little if anything. I've enjoyed most of what you guys have done … but no more. I have Direct Satellite here at our office and that contains XM satellite radio stations to meet every need. They don't play stupid commercials and they don't develop diarrhea of the mouth.
OOO! Satellite radio! That works; you can't blame him for playing that card. I remember when I was pissed off at the cable company once in Ohio and I told them I was going to get a satellite dish. I tell you, it was like I'd threatened to rape their firstborn daughter. Whatever it was that was pissing me off, they fixed it the next morning.
(writer's name and email addy removed by management as a condition of my receiving a copy of the letter)
Footnote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
4: Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
Another tactic conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also done so. For example, on the December 21 edition of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant."
But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release .
From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt Drudge selectively cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve " the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. " That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain " the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
posted by kestrel9000 at 7:45 PM
1 Comments:
Kestel:
It's francislholland! Nope I didn't get the joke and I don't know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in France. What was the joke, and what do they call a quarter pounder with cheese in France?
(I spent three years there, but before I left I promised myself that I would NEVER go to a McDonalds there, because there HAD to be something better than McDonalds food to eat in France. In fact, I found better things to eat for three full years, and never went to McDonalds. Thank God, because just the smell of those McDonald's restaurants was putrid from the street!
Post a Comment
<< Home