I swear I'm really not that gadget-obsessed. Having a lot of Apple gear, camera equipment and whatnot is maybe what you could call a professional perk. . . but it's a means to an end.

This iphone thing, however, had me at hello. I don't recall ever experiencing such raw, materialistic longing. Except maybe for a plastic Otpimus Prime at age 9. It has taken untold willpower to get to this day, February 29th (and an extra delay at that, damn you leap year), the day before my Sprint PCS contract expires, without plunging headfirst into the land of telecom-transcending tactile joy, cancellation fees be damned. But Liz has kept my feet on the ground as I have complained about lack of mobile e-mail and oh-so-primitive texting, as I have insisted that today's creative professional simply cannot be encumbered any longer by the limits of a mere "cell phone."

PLEASE MOMMY I WANT IT NOW!!!

Eight months I have waited, just to avoid the spiteful $200 that Sprint brandishes at its unsatisfied customers. The wait ends today.

MUAHAAHAHAHAHA.

-jw

So I thought I remembered hearing in early January that this flu season had been fairly mild so far. There was a particularly nasty strain of common cold that was going around (most of us here Casa Ogden got it in one form or another last month), but the media authorities were expressing relief that the good old influenza was limited.

So the fact that we are *now* apparently in the midst of one of the worst flu seasons in recent memory kind of snuck up on me. The same way the flu itself did late Friday afternoon.

This is what the national map looks like:



This thing knocked me flat. I've been in bed for about three days straight and am just starting to feel human again. I don't think I've had a flu since my Sophomore year in college, when a really nasty strain combined with little sleep and the brutal Chicago winter (ahh, Chicago) resulted in walking pneumonia. Yum.

Maybe blogging makes me feel a bit more productive -- or a bit less guilty -- while I lie here with multiple neglected projects piling up.

Stay healthy out there!

-jw

Are we really supposed to believe that the threat of foreign terrorism justifies throwing out the BIll of Rights? The FISA law as it stood gave the Feds plenty of leeway in conducting surveillance -- it even allowed them to get warrants retroactively. But that wasn't good enough for Bush. While lying to the American people by telling them that all the spying was being done with the required judicial oversight, he was directing his administration to break the law and and tap our phones and emails with no warrants at all.

Two years ago a definitive speech was given at Constitution Hall in DC that thoroughly outlined the Administration's trangressions (only weeks after they had been leaked to the press) and made the case for why we shouldn't let them stand. Here's one vital point, among others:



Highly reccommended: the whole speech.

Nowadays, Bush has rammed legislation through that nominally legalizes his abuse of power. And he's insisted that, even though a new FISA bill is required to protect the lives of Americans, he will veto any bill that does not include required immunity (get out of jail free card) for all of the telecom companies that gladly helped him break the law by plugging the NSA into their customers' private communications. By his own reasoning, as the Teddy K. points out below, protecting the big phone companies from prosecution is more important than protecting the lives of Americans!



Let freedom ring.

-jw

P.S. I should update this to include linked sources. Maybe later, but I have to crash.

This was ultimately a losing fight, but progressives and the "netroots" and people who care about civil liberties and the sanctity of the Bill of Rights in this country really took up the fight against the Bush Administration's persistent crusade to shield the telecom companies that colluded with the NSA to spy on American citizens in clear violation of the law and the Constitution and in defiance of Congressional oversight. It should be clear to all of us that the administration wants to give permanent immunity to these corporations because it's afraid that, in the course of any inquiry or investigation, too much might come out about what it was really up to.

The Bush Administration would like us to believe that their illegal wiretapping was a national security necessity in response to 9/11. But we know now with certainty, based on the testimony of Qwest (which didn't go along with it), that the spying was begun by the NSA many months *before* 9/11. If you hadn't heard that before you're probably thinking: WTF? My sentiments exactly.

It's times like these to take note of who stood for what, when push came to shove on the floor of the Senate. And who didn't bother to show up. (Ahem, Senator Clinton.)

-jw

And he won what, 49% of the vote? Without the Ohio shenanigans?

I'm sure a lot of people have seen this, but I'm posting it anyway.



-jw

So. . .

If there were a way to rebuke the last eight years of disastrous "leadership" by probably the worst US President in history, to begin to atone for the untold death, destruction and murder his administration has caused, to start repairing the damage done to `the country and the Constitution. . . could we do it?

Is it possible to overstate the importance of this election?

About Hillary Clinton. I think she's brilliant and capable. She probably would be or could be a good president. She's been demonized for years to an extent that has always seemed baffling, and I have to believe a lot of it is sexism. How dare a first lady be asked to take on policy issues as well as bake cookies and order new drapes for the Lincoln bedroom. How dare she be as smart and informed as her husband, or have political ambitions of her own. New York re-elected her to the Senate in a landslide. I agree with her positions on almost all of the big issues like Healthcare and Climate Change. And I'll vote for her, should she end up as the nominee, because she'll be a thousand times better than another Republican in the White House.

But Barack Obama is a much stronger choice and a much stronger candidate, for so many reasons.

Hillary voted for the war, no matter how she's tried to spin and prevaricate about it. She's basically gone along with the Bushies the whole way. Very few democrats were perceptive or courageous enough to see through the lies and the propaganda. Obama did from the beginning. He spoke against it when it was politically risky and even predicted the disastrous outcome that we've been witnessing for the last five years. She will always have to answer for her past position on the war, and it makes her a weaker candidate, even if she goes up against John "'a hundred more years in Iraq,' 'other wars' and 'Bomb Iran'" McCain.

Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists and to continue the ethics reform he started in the Senate. Hillary has said she agrees that we have to get the money out of politics in order to break the corruption -- but she still takes lobbyist money and she's been close to those corporate interests for decades now. I think we all can agree that the influence wielded by lobbyists and corporate money are a huge reason why the public interest often loses in D.C. When he was here in LA the other day, I also heard Obama talk about the importance of choosing people to work in his administration based on their expertise, not their loyalty to him. "Because the people in my administration won't be working for me," he said. "They'll be working for the American people." Maybe that sounds trite or obvious. But the Bush administration has, as a practice, staffed federal government agencies with political appointees and granted posts in return for political favors. The incompetence resulting from this way of doing the people's business has been most visible in the botched response to Katrina and Michael "heckuva job, Brownie" Brown. . . but it goes much further. Most of the federal agencies are run by people who have come straight from the big business interests that the agencies are supposed to be regulating. Former oil and coal executives in charge of environmental protection, anyone? Foxes guarding our henhouses. . .

What about Obama's supposed lack of experience? While he doesn't have as many years in government as some of the other candidates, he also has a lot less baggage. Part of his appeal is that he represents a fresher start, a new direction. If Hillary's the nominee, we're going to have to deal with all the Clinton scandals, old and new, true or false, all over again. Bill Clinton's foundation has been doing great charitable work around the world in the last several years, but who knows what dirt on his private life is out there? You can bet that the Right will use everything at their disposal to defeat the Democratic nominee, and I think they'll have a lot more ammunition against the Clintons. Right now, Obama is not as vulnerable. And, in fact, he's been a legislator longer than Hillary. All you need to do is listen to him or read him to see that he has a deep intellect and an expansive knowledge of history and policy. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Before that, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was the first black president of the Harvard Review. And instead of using those accomplishments to land a high-paying, high-profile spot at a big firm, he went to the South Side of Chicago and practiced civil rights law in the same neighborhoods where he was a community organizer right out of college. (And Obama is not from Chicago. He grew up in Suburban Honolulu where he went to a private prep school.) How many other politicians have a history of that kind of public service? Isn't that what people are talking about when they use words like "character" during political campaigns?



If you've seen the wildly enthusiastic, overflow crowds he's been drawing lately, you've seen how he inspires and motivates people more than any other candidate on either side. That in itself is a powerful reason to vote for him. A grassroots network unlike any in the past few elections has sprung into action. A new generation is coming out in force for Barack Obama. Independents and even large numbers or Republicans have responded to his message of optimism and unity, because he has an almost unique ability to frame progressive issues in a non-partisan way that appeals to common sense. But he isn't what you would call "bipartisan." His positions are strongly progressive -- pro universal healthcare, for aggressive action against Global Warming, against the Iraq War, against special interests and corruption -- but he has the political and rhetorical skills to transcend the traditional divide and move beyond the finger-pointing and blame-gaming that turns so many people off. I'm pretty partisan and readily admit that I've been drawn to the more confrontational tone of John Edwards and the raw liberalism of Kucinich in the recent past. But Obama's tack is really quite brilliant. It's effective, and you only have to look at his track record in the race so far and the latest polls to see how well it's working!

Finally, I think recent endorsements by JFK's daughter Caroline and RKF's Widow Ethel, who have remained silent for decades, signify that he is a politician -- and potentially a leader -- unlike anyone the country has seen in a long time.

I suppose that's my two cents. Thanks for reading. Don't forget to vote this Super Tuesday or whenever your state has its turn!



-jw

Finally, California gets to play. . .



Senator Obama spoke to and took questions from a phenomenally engaged audience at LA City Trade and Technical College.





And while I was thrilled to discuss the event afterward with tireless campaign trail reporter Jeff Mason, I was disappointed to learn that I had just missed Maureen Dowd. . .



The more I learn about him and see how much he inspires others, the more I like this guy. Next up I'm gonna post about why he's getting my vote.

Only three days left. . .

-jw