Senatorial drunk dial

When news broke that the US House and Senate are finishing up a "compromise" bill on domestic spying authority for the President, I happened to be drinking beer in my backyard. Upon a perusal of the NY Times, where I found out about the deal and the positions of the various factions, I fired off this letter to a number of US Senators, hoping that one or another of them might consider a filibuster.

I don't feel like elaborating right now, except to say that Senator Dodd's speech on the Senate floor after the motion to allow consideration of the bill (and after I wrote this letter, but before I sent it to him) was Awesome.

Here is the text of the letter:

---------

I categorically oppose the expansion of executive authority to wiretap without warrants. Period. Further, the idea that this revision "reaffirms" that it is the sole authorization for the executive to conduct domestic surveillance, when it was explicitly that way before and ignored anyway, is patently ridiculous. In his signing statement, the President will conveniently broadcast that this new reaffirmation of Congress's authority in no way abridges his perceived arbitrary power to do whatever he deems necessary. Then we will be back where we started, except that no one will be accountable and lawsuits that may allow discovery of documentation will be quashed.

Our government is broken. The idea that compromise is preferable to keeping our liberty intact is bankrupt. From this point forward, every lawmaker, judge, or executive that capitulates to the imperial demands of this or any President, even in compromise, will henceforth never receive my vote. Period.

Jevan Furmanski

cc. Senator Feingold, Wisconsin
Senator Feinstein, California
Senator Voinovich, Ohio
Senator Brown, Ohio
Senator Dodd, Connecticut

Miniscule introduction

First, a short introduction. I'm Jevan Furmanski; I research and engineer (mostly in reverse) total joint replacements, which I do in Cleveland. I have more opinions than I have data on most topics, but when I have data I have "interpretations" which I regard as substantially more interesting than opinions. Most people can't tell the difference, and I hate arguing with them.

As such, I exert substantial effort to remain not on any side of an issue, but rather on the side of disclosure and discussion. I have been told that I wasn't allowed to "have it both ways" by arguing both for and against the same position. This is only true if one is already satisfied that there is a "right" and that they are trying to make their views accepted as it. Bollocks. So, I will make posts both for and against certain topics, sometimes within the same paragraph. Such is the nature of human uncertainty, when candor is admissible.

I have a house, neighbors, a wife, in-laws, a daughter, and a 8 week old lab puppy. Some of these things are awesome, some not, and all of them will show up in future posts. Also, I'm super pissed-off about certain goings on in our country (though I always try to decouple the policy from the people), and that will show up too. Mostly, I expect to complain and harass, and hopefully it will remain interesting to someone. Blog.