No, it's correct. These are powers that already exist. The bill is to renew it. Parts were to expire; the bill extends them. That did not pass yet, but they did vote to keep them for a few months.
If the headline is inapt, it's in implying that the bill is something new. And that this is happening now to hide it, rather than because the existing bill's sunset clauses are coming up.
So if I understand you correctly, they voted to extend these (existing) powers short term, and will have another vote later on whether to keep them long term.
The headline seems to imply congress is trying to sneak something by while everyone is distracted, rather than maintaining the status quo temporarily.
There's enough to be concerned with congress without being misleading. Framing everything Congress does as some conspiracy theory only dilutes the response when actually shady things are happening.
You are correct: the headline is not-untrue, but it is misleading. The short-term extension is solely a matter of the pandemic; it's unclear what the outcome of the long-term vote will be.
There are many who consider this bill shady regardless, since it's there to extend powers passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Civil libertarians (of whom there are many on this site) always considered it dangerous, and two decades on even more so. So from that standpoint, the alarm in the headline is called for, even if not precisely for the reasons it says.
Substack (W18) | Full stack engineer | San Francisco | Onsite | https://substack.com
Substack lets writers start their own subscription publication - think paid blog/newsletter - where writers' and readers' incentives are aligned.
Over 50k people pay to subscribe to publications, and top writers are making six figures.
We use Node, Express, and Postgres on top of Heroku. React for frontend. Simple & effective so we can focus on solving problems for users.
We are 4 people. We raised a series A from a16z this summer and are thoughtfully building our early team. Two of our three founders are technical (the other is a writer) and we're looking for folks to work along side us, shipping things that touch thousands of writers and millions of readers.
His wiki[1] says "Women portrayed in the book have gone on record to defend Taibbi, stating that none of the sexual harassment portrayed in the book ever happened."[2]
"Raise doubts" is a bit stingy. Here is what one of the allegedly-harrassed women had to say (in the Paste article):
“These claims that Matt would do this stuff are ridiculous,” she said. “I left The eXile because we started dating, and Matt was worried about impropriety. He didn’t even ask me out at work! Matt is a fundamentally decent and kind person.”
The smear seems to me to have been completely refuted on the facts, and there's a second issue: if it hadn't been, there's no way those mainstream publications would have retracted it en masse (especially not given the social climate around that topic). When was the last time they all did that? It's practically a magic trick to get them to do that.
