Slashdot Mirror
New FISA Bill Would Grant Telcoms Immunity; Vote Is Tomorrow
An anonymous reader writes "This just in: a new 'compromise' FISA Bill (PDF) was just made public, which, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, 'contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans.' The House vote is tomorrow, June 20. After all the secret rooms and everything ... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone." CNN covers this get-out-of-lawsuit play as well.
/.ers will complain. Telcos will continue helping to spy.
Film at 11
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
He can put a stop to this.
866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.
Let them know:
-You are a progressive.
-Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans.
-What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL.
-He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.
If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.
http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html
Email does NOT have the same impact as a phone call.
How does this compare to the law in Sweden?
Doesn't it simply rubber stamp the domestic spying, that has been done along with legalising it in the future?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Don't worry about breaking the law. As Nixon said, "If the President does it, it's legal."
In my ideal world, the people who make and enforce the rules would be held to a higher standard than the proles who merely have to follow the rules. It's bad enough when the infraction is minor like a cop doing 20 over the speed limit but when we're talking about the crimes committed in this case, it's the sort of thing that erodes faith in our very society.
I know there are people who say that there shouldn't be trials after Obama is elected, that it would be divisive and bad for the nation. Those people can kindly go fuck themselves. That same logic was used to praise Ford for not investigating Nixon. That same logic was used to praise Clinton for not seriously investigating the scandals of the Reagan and Bush administrations. All this did was let the same shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office. No. As a nation, we need hearings, we need trials. Bush and his henchmen need to answer for their crimes. A standard needs to be set in stone: we are a nation of laws, not men, and no man is above the law. Even Presidents will be forced to account for their actions and pay for their sins.
This will be part of our process for reengaging with the world. We've burned a shitload of bridges over the past eight years. When everyone can see an American President sitting in jail for his crimes, they'll know that justice has returned.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Do we know that the administration was listening in on calls between two people in the US? All I see in these arguments are statements about "domestic" wiretapping when the actual discussion should be covering calls between an American citizen and someone on a watch list who NEEDS his calls tapped, and the Bush admin just didn't file the proper paperwork. Yeah, maybe it's more sinister than that, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of philosophical/theoretical arguments and NO real-world situations that even allegedly occurred.
Not that I'm totally defending the administration, but the FISA bill needed updating because it was written in a time where there weren't any cell phones and calls weren't routed through ten different countries and satellites and all that mess.
The issue of 'wiretapping' the Internet seems to be a bit like gun control. If you make it hard to legally own a gun, you make it harder for innocents to protect themselves from criminals.
Basically, with encryption technology being what it is and open source being what it is, it is possible for those who want to conceal their data from the government. Thus, they will.
So, really, where does this put us?
1) Stupid criminals may get caught.
2) Innocents may get falsely IDed through whatever automated filtering is done on unencrypted traffic.
3) Those that have the foresight to think that they may not want their data to get intercepted will utilize the free, existing encryption tools to protect themselves.
So, basically the people that are actually skilled enough to be dangerous are unaffected by this.
Could the value for the NSA only come in if they specifically targeted a specific suspect host's traffic and applied a lot of processing power to brute forcing the encryption? If that is what they are after, I see value to national security and convicting criminals.
If it is anything else, it seems very misguided. However, there was a lot of money put into Carnivore so who knows.
They will pass it, and the majority of Americans will go blissfully along, acting like everything is fine. The really interesting thing here, and we all know this, is that these tools for control that have been put in place in the last 8 years are mainly for control of the American people, not for any sort of "war on terror" or protecting us from Al-Qaida. The bigger lies are more easily believed. Keep waiving that flag!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Technically speaking, the bill doesn't provide for amnesty. What that bill does do is require telcos to provide the letters the Bush administration gave them that said the programs were legal. Essentially, if the telcos can prove that Bush et al. told them this was legal, they get off the hook.
So I suppose if the executive branch told your company it was legal to do anything, you'll never be held accountable for your actions.
That's a pretty dangerous precedent. Why doesn't Bush let our oil companies know it's legal to drill in ANWR? He can give them the CYA letter and off they go.
McDermott, Jim WA 7th 225-3106
The woman who answered the phone says that he is against retroactive immunity.
That's one vote against it.
No, you can't have rule of law.
Not yours!
'... and spied on millions of ordinary Americans'
I read it on the internet.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
How is it that Congress can effectively amend the consitution (they would be by passing this bill) without going through proper procedure and yet everyone is just going to sit and watch? This bill grants the President and his administration rights they CLEARLY don't have, 'rights' that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. How is it this is even possible? We've screwed ourselves by electing the best of the best to bend us all over.... thanks everyone!
My Sig Sucks
This law is an Ex Post Facto law, making what was an illegal act legal, so if this law passes, it should be unconstitutional as per Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution.
Note that judges have somehow taken that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." sentence to mean that ex post facto laws that make the punishment worse are unconstitutional, but that isn't what the constitution says. Maybe that is one of those hidden things like in amendment 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
"Slashdotters identify policitians who represent a clear danger to their biased thinking."
If what you said were true, I'd agree totally, but since what I've said is the reality, there's no reason to proceed.
"Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened"
Or maybe you're smack in the middle of an echo chamber that reinforces your opinions without recognizing that you're in the vast minority of the general populace.
In case you're wondering, the majority of the populace may not have opinions that align directly with the male 18-35 demographic, which I'd wager is the majority of those posting/reading Slashdot.
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
Don't you think that it might send a bigger message if, for example, Obama could come to the floor with a list and/or recordings of say, 15-20000 phone calls saying that they're switching parties to vote for him because of bullshit legislation like this?
Playing to your own base is one thing. Playing to the enemy by showing you're up in their base, stealing all their votes is quite another -- and that's the sort of show stopper.
Who says you even have to actually be a Republican. Just call and say you're switching parities because of it. Then call your legislator and say the same.
http://www.thestrangebedfellows.com/
This group has been following this story for a few days now. It is a group consisting of liberal blogs (like FireDogLake, CrooksAndLiars, Glenn Greenwald) but has also been joined by Libertarian Conservative blogs across the aisle.
Haven't even bothered to notice that Chris Dodd has slipped a provision into the housing bill that requires all internet businesses and payment providers to report their transactions to the IRS.
just all financial transactions
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.
Way to go Democrats! You guys are the best!
This is my sig.
You'll have to keep hitting 0 to get to a person.
I made my call.
When you make your call, remind whomever you talk to that Senator Obama could talk to The Honourable Hoyer and Pelosi to ask them for their assistance in ending this bill.
"I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."
So you don't vote then.
Leahy is against the capitulation"compromise" (per an email on Kos) and he's chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. This has to get on the floor, and I believe it would be through his committee.
http://www.thestrangebedfellows.com/
They've raised $200,000+ in 2-3 days to combat this bill.
I might have doubled posted this now but I can't find my original post...
The supreme court can still trun this over if it is passed.
Just wrote my Congresswoman, but I would like to call as well, and I would like to be able to specifically cite the legislation.
The EFF link does not provide this information.
This vote, the recent one in Sweden, wiretapping, surveillance, censorship; governments across the western world basically totally ignoring long held principles for individual rights and freedoms. They keep doing it, and nothing seems to be able to stop it.
I'm led more and more to the conclusion that our system of democracy isn't working anymore. I don't know why, and I'm pretty sure it did work before. Governments usen't be able to get away with even proposing this nonsense. Whatever we had that worked before doesn't seem to be there anymore.
Don't get me wrong now. I still believe in democracy, at least I think I do. Is the kind I believe in the one we actually have, or ever had? I vote. I see others voting. But I still see a disconnect between the actions of government and the will of the people. What has gone wrong? Is it just my vision that's in error here?
Is the fact that this recent shift occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the internet a coincidence? Is it just fallout from 9/11? Or something more? Is it the media? The corporations? The fall of communism? Globalisation? Or is it just the fact that we have indeed reached true democracy, and the currently evolving system of oppression is in fact what the people truly want?
I think there's a problem with our democracy. Something is broken, and I don't know what it is. The end result is that democracy is not working the way it once did. Maybe I'm just a fool raised on too many fairy tales about the way things should work. I'd like to think that, but I do perceive the shifts in our society, laws, and governments to be very real. Either the west is collectively shifting into some other system of government, or the very concept of democracy is itself undergoing some kind of phase change.
May the Maths Be with you!
Doesn't mean they will. This is a court that barely upheld Habeas Corpus. I used to have a lot of faith in the court system, too. Not so much these days.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I just called my representative and have done so over the last months two other times. I know it's not much, but it's all I can really do.
Essentially what this and other legislation like it does is enable the furthering of corporate power over the individual. Don't mistake that this is to assist the government, this is purely for control. That is obvious on it's face. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Money talks, and corporations have loads of it. Hey, Dodd votes pretty good on environmental issues, but like Roger Waters wrote,
When the sleigh is heavy
And the timber wolves are getting bold
You look at your companions
And test the water of their friendship
With you toe
They significantly edge
Closer to the gold
Each man has his price Bob
And yours was pretty low
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The most scary part of this bill is it allows a person, or company to entirely avoid legal ramifications by simply stating "I was only following orders."
If that argument is a credible one in America, then the country is more morally bankrupt then I ever imagined.
you know who i hate more than telcos that have monopoly control because of the government?
the government that gave them that monopoly control.
Imagine that you're telco X. $important_guy in the executive branch (who owns the FCC, mind you) comes along and says "i'd like you to do blah for us. You'll agree, if you know what's good for you. By the way, we're the feds, and we can do anything we like, as demonstrated by the fact that we're asking you to do this, which you and we both know is illegal."
Basically, I can't get too upset with some company for going along with what the feds, who weild ultimate power over their existance, have asked them to do.
Suing these companies for not having the courage to stand up to the law is kind of hypocritical unless you are willing to stand up to the feds when they ask you to do something distasteful. Remember, they'll have guns when they ask you.
Yeah -- these telco's did the wrong thing, but I'd argue that when the NSA asks you to do something, that's considered "duress".
I think the dems and the republicans are just too addicted to getting their kicks off of spiting each other for anyone to just be reasonable now and then. It's hard for me to see this as little more than dems picking on two of their favorite targets: large companies, and anyone that cooperates with the Bush adminsitration _at all_.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Then you'll be immune too!
The level of corruption in the US government and industry is just remarkable.
Salut,
Jacques
if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone.
Verily! That will show The Man who's boss!
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Come on Slashdotters... We can bring websites to their knees! We can flood our representatives. OK, perhaps you're all too lazy to call. At the very least, EMAIL. If you don't do something, you have no right to complain later. You have no excuses. Google can find you a nice webpage for your reps, and they all have links for email.
Do It. This is important.
-T
Death threats aren't clever or funny.
It's dipshitted yap like yours that puts weight behind bills like this.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
One of the real problems is that people are ridiculously stupid and uneducated. I don't mean going through harvard/yale, I mean people actually researching issues. The kind of people who can acknowledge that both our republican and democratic candidates (all of them) are horrible horrible people, and our choices are merely between the lesser of evils.
I wrote my 2 senators, and my rep immediately upon hearing this latest round of horse crap, just google a bit and find your guys, give them an earful:
"Dear Mr. Wu,
I am writing you regarding the most recent FISA reform bill that is soon to come up for a vote. I am deeply angered to find that this "bipartisan" bill once again aims to grant telecommunication companies blanket immunity. I strongly urge you to vote against it.
The American People (i.e. "We the People") have yet to have ANY significant disclosure as to what extent executive branch, complicit with some memeber of congress, conspired illegally with telecommunication companies to spy on the People. As a voter in our increasingly disgraced country I strongly urge you to vote against any bill that sweeps this affair under the rug. We the People demand accountability. We the People demand transparency in our government. We the People demand our constitutional right against illegal search and siezure.
Please do all that you can to reign in the executive branch to its constitional boundaries once again. Please use your office to demand that past and present illegal actions by the executive branch, and complicit memeber of congress be held to account. Our country's conscience demands it.
Thank you"
Other than that, vote every complicit SOB out of office as soon as possible. Enough angry people can occasionally rile up the Sheeple.
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.
I can't speak for Democrats, particularly since I haven't officially abandoned the smoking wreckage of the Republican party by changing my registration yet. However, since I have been worried about Bush and the evolving disaster of a presidency his administration has inflicted on the nation for the last 8 years, perhaps I'm a suitable proxy.
First off -- how exactly are you privy to the rough number of conversations the administration had wiretapped? What exactly is "a few"? 10? 100? A million (still just a fraction of a percent of Americans)?
Second -- what makes you think it's wiretapping in general people are averse to? I certainly don't have a problem with wiretapping done in accordance with the law. But see, that's not what we're talking about here. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be discussing immunity.
Third -- what makes you think the same people who are nervous about "extralegal" wiretapping wouldn't be nervous about the IRS having access to all payment data? Not that this is the same thing as handing stuff over to, say, the CIA, but I suspect your implication is a false dichotomy. It *does* make me worry if the state's asking for blanket access to financial transaction records without a warrant.
So I do appreciate the notice, really. Just not sure why you had to throw in the non-sequitur conclusions. Though by all means, if you have conclusive evidence about the number of illegal wiretaps, a general allergy to well-overseen and legal wiretaps, or that most people who are worried about wiretaps don't care about your news once informed, by all means, feel free to present it.
Tweet, tweet.
more of the same
... if music be fruit of love, play on
Don't use the 'my congressman isn't part of the problem' card. He or she is.
Don't vote for any more Republicrats and we won't have these kind of back door deals.
so there being no time beforehand is a red herring.
Twonk.
It's simple, put the keyboard down, pick-up the phone and call your Representative. Go to http://www.stopthespying.org/ if you don't know who that is, then call 5 friends (or as many as you have) and ask them to do the same. NOW.
This is called grass roots and you can make a difference.
was just made public, ... The House vote is tomorrow, June 20.
How come you guys keep touting what a wonderful country you live in if the government can get away with this kind of stuff?
This kind of crap is more reminiscent of the old East Germany or Romania than anything the founding fathers had in mind.
No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
The big problem is not that it grants them immunity, it's that in doing so it blocks an investigation into what the Government was doing. Which of course is WHY the bill is granting them that immunity.
Why would I call someone I am not ever voting for? I faxed my California Senators Boxer and Feinstein and told them I am against immunity. They can actually do something about this.
So when the United States puts death threats on other countries/people/it's own citizens it is okay?
Ohh I see, death threats are only allowed if the United States of America makes them, I understand the rules now, thank you for clearing that up for everyone.
Back at the NSA: "Some troll on slashdot calls for nuclear war, we MUST use or wiretapping powers to stop this troll from carrying out his plans."
I think your dipshitted yap is hypocritical and short sighted.
Today people are taught to pass tests, not to think. If people were thinking, they'd be dangerous. Since they aren't thinking, they're safe. Do you think it's a coincidence that the school system is set up the way it is?
The rare "thinking" people can't often thank the public school system for that. It is either due to some natural fluke, or parents that actually cared for and taught their children.
This is what democracy has always been. It is the most powerful groups dominating the smaller groups on particular topics. Usually, this is the largest number of people, the Divine Right of (50% + 1), dominating and controlling the minority. Other times, it is the politicians themselves. This is politics as an alternative form of civil war. This is democracy.
Formerly, there was a widespread understanding of this and what distinguished democracies from republics.
[Please note the capitalization below. It is significant.]
Here are two very similar scenarios.
A state wants to do something which is popular locally but anathema nationally. It goes up for a vote locally and wins. A republican (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere may think it a bad idea, but as he is not a citizen of that state it does not occur to him to try and stop it. A democrat (party unimportant) who lives elsewhere and disapproves of it, can and likely will try to galvanize support to suppress the law.
The federal government wants do do something, which has majority support, but that support is regionalized. It would be democratic to pass it and simply force all those opposed to obey. A republican (again, party unimportant) who thinks that something to be a good course of action in general, may be wholeheartedly opposed to federal action due to an abhorrence of forcing a people do what they themselves are opposed to.
I don't think I've been as clear as I could have been, or possibly at all, but I hope that the gist at least comes across okay.
Err, that ideal died in 1997 or so when Congress basically said "oh, he only committed perjury about a blowjob - everyone does that..."
You can't prove that Clinton lied during testimony. But even if he did lie, he still didn't commit perjury, since a lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Monica and Bill was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for Bill to have committed perjury on the subject.
And seriously, you're putting a non-lie about a blowjob on the same playing field as torture, spying on American citizens in America without warrants, and holding people in jail indefinitely without trials? Were you born without a sense of proportion?
My congresscritter, John Mica, is a rather committed republican and a lost cause. Letter-writing campaigns and the like assume that whom you're writing letters to gives a damn. I'd probably have better luck waiting for this to get to the Senate, and I doubt I'm the only one.
Pelosi and Reid have much more control over votes than Barack does. He can try and bring publicity to issues, but that's his only real power.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
When the government, which legislates what is legal and what is not, tells the telcos to do something that might be illegal under current law, is it not fair to expect the government to legislate immunity?
Telcos are not exactly popular around here, but they were really being squeezed between a rock (the government, which controls their destiny through legislation and regulation, demanding actions in the name of national security) and a hard place (the possible illegality of the action demanded by the government).
I think the fault lies wholly with the government that demanded the action in the first place. Giving telcos immunity is only fair in this case.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
People take it for granted until they don't have any. Per usual, the public won't bother to deal with this issue until we're already suffocating.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
The plurality voting system sucks. If we could rank each candidate or "grade" each candidate on a scale and then add up the total scores, then we would have viable third parties. Rather than fret about the party or candidate you oppose winning, you can vote your conscience knowing that your second- and third-place picks will count. Think of how many more people would have voted for Paul in the Republican primary had they not been overly concerned about preventing Huckabee from beating Romney...
I agree with you in your entirety.
My parents cared for me and taught me to stand up for what I believe and to use logic to come to conclusions (and not half assed or backwards logic).
Is it any surprise that a majority of the people who use logic end up a: not following religion, and b: very technology/computer oriented and c: forward thinking?
Why do so few of these kinds of people get in power, and how do we get people of the opposite variety to that who come straight out of Harvard for example?
Though TITLE I pages 15 and 45 also have "Release From Liability" sections reading in commonality: RELEASE FROM LIABILITY. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Type in your zip code to get the contact info for
your Representative:
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Harvard is a Lexus. State college is a Toyota. They're both Toyota, but one has a much more exclusive club membership than the other.
The whole point of this is these companies need to be subject to accountability, and to actually engage in reasonable inquiry.
They don't properly investigate the veracity of dmca notices, they don't go to reasonable lengths to defend our privacy against the MAFIAA, and they dont have a proper suspicion of governmental action.
They don't do anything unless compelled by the loss of truckloads of Benjamins, and giving them immunity from the fallout will only encourage their malfeasance.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Not sure how you can call that a "complete unknown", when its right out there in plain view for the whole world to read.
Not to mention 8 years in Illinois State Senate. Significant state, not exactly political kindergarten.
There's an autobiography, "Dreams from My Father", written before he entered political office. There's records of participation with community organizing groups, there's quite possibly a publishing record from when he worked at the Harvard Law Review or University of Chicago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Plenty to find out about. It's easy to see how much of this could have fallen under the radar of people who might not follow the minutia of politics closely. But to those he *stays* a complete unknown, it won't be because he's a blank slate, it'll be because people aren't doing their homework.
Tweet, tweet.
Don't worry, they wont. Its all secret, remember?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Copy the relevant portion of the message above and use the following link to send an email to your congress critter NOW.
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
Don't just bitch about it here, make it count.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The people who have been attempting to cram this B.S. down the throats of the American public have no shame! The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves! These S.O.B(s). should be taken out into the streets and stoned to death by all freedom loving Americans!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
The psychopath always blames the victim. The psychopath never takes responsibility for the damage they cause, or admits to personal flaw or error. The psychopath says the most outrageous things which no rational human could ever say without feeling stupid and ashamed, and s/he does so with a straight face. This is possible because the psychopath is simply wired wrong.
Also, that's some very strange formatting and odd logical construction there, mister. Confused communication is also a standard hallmark of the psychopath. Did you also like blowing up frogs with firecrackers when you were a kid?
Who knows. Maybe you're just drunk and stupid. Whatever the case, you are hopelessly wrong in your assertions and anybody with a brain should immediately be able to see why. But it should be noted that the sociopath/narcissist/psychopath would be incapable of understanding why this is so; literally incapable --on a neurological level.
-FL
I agree, an unthinking populace is vastly easier to control. That's why American society is taught not to value intelligence at all, but rather the simplistic activities that are paraded around in the media (sports, gossip etc). Thus our current predicament.
The kids that aren't like this are usually have to thank their passionate drive not to be an unthinking cow like the rest of their so-called "peers" in public school. Most baby-boomer parents want the vapid sports-is-the-only-thing-worth-doing unthinking cow-child that public schools produce. The fact that this doesn't happen in every case is usually due to the student not wanting to subject themselves to becoming such a pathetic specimen of human waste.
I'll shorten it to the most important observation. Voters can feel the state of voting intention, and every vote for a third party wins a corresponding vote from the other side. This is why the "reverse squeeze" (seek votes from the less popular competing local candidate) works: the party with majority support loses a roughly equal number of votes, since it is now (relatively) "safer" to vote for the third party.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Actually, it's rather hard to imagine a student not wanting to subject themselves to being a member of the "pathetic specimen of human waste" club. It's a big and popular club and many children cry themselves to sleep at nights wondering why they couldn't be [stupid] just like everyone else. Many people don't CHOOSE to be thinking people. Many, such as myself, had no choice in the matter and I was a very miserable child as a result. I simply couldn't understand the things other kids did and I couldn't accept the things I couldn't understand.
It took me a LONG LONG time to shift my understanding to the realization that my being different was an advantage of sorts... even now, it's something of a disadvantage. I can't use Windows because it's a big mess inside of the black box and I know it can't be trusted while other people lead perfectly contented lives with Windows and simply accept that their personal information is available to any 'evil doer' determined enough to get it.
Meanwhile, learning how to think can actually be taught and it isn't taught very often.
It comes down to one issue for me. I vote on the Second Amendment. It's been a long time since I voted for a Democrat.
I faxed my California Senators and Representative on this compromise bill. I told them I an against it and why. Boxer and Feinstein will vote for this bill if it gets to the Senate.
I will not be voting for Obama as he as said in the past he wants to ban all semiautomatic firearms and handguns.
I don't believe democracy is the problem. The reason for this is because we do not live in a democracy. We are actually a hybrid government of sorts, balanced between democracy and socialism.
This is not such a bad thing, though. Too much democracy is self-destructive, slow, and unwieldy to use. Too much socialist tendencies restrict individual freedoms and limits the potential that a nation can achieve.
That being said, I think that the problem lies in the past. The USA has followed a safe, steady course, and it has led us into stagnation. Politicians have done this because they do not want to be blamed for any actions that they might do. Doing radically different things can be unpopular and suspect to the citizens who are observing. Thus, we have followed this safe, steady course ever since the creation of our nation, with few exceptions.
The solution? We must break free from the safe, steady path, before everyone suffers to a point that no one can bear. This will have some consequences, because by doing anything radical, someone is bound to be isolated, damaged, and/or hurt by the changes. However, is that an appropriate price in order to get off of the safe, steady course?
I don't believe democracy is the problem. The reason for this is because we do not live in a democracy. We are actually a hybrid government of sorts, balanced between democracy and socialism.
This is not such a bad thing, though. Too much democracy is self-destructive, slow, and unwieldy to use. Too much socialist tendencies restrict individual freedoms and limits the potential of a nation.
That being said, I think that the problem lies in the past. The USA has followed a safe, steady course, and it has led us into stagnation. Politicians have done this because they do not want to be blamed for any actions that they might do. Doing radically different things can be unpopular and suspect to the citizens who are observing. Thus, we have followed this safe, steady course ever since the creation of our nation, with few exceptions.
The solution? We must break free from the safe, steady path, before everyone suffers to a point that no one can bear. This will have some consequences, because by doing anything radical, someone is bound to be isolated, damaged, and/or hurt by the changes. However, is that an appropriate price in order to get off of the safe, steady course?
no, the issue is, people like organization. It is much easier for 100,000 people to sign a document/petition with the collective idea in the hands of a group with a lawyer fighting the good fight. Then 100,000 sending emails, letters, taking time off work to strike, picket, etc.
If you're going to play the game you have to play like the others. Start a non-profit group, build a base of supports, raise funds and fight the system. That's the problem.
It's almost like starting another government to help fix the current governments policy.
Check out the Schulze Method.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I really don't understand why the Dems are giving in on this. Spare us the "they're all corrupt" explanation. Sure they are all corrupt, but that doesn't explain what's going on here. There is potential political pain for the Dems by giving in, and potential political profit from defeating the bill. It doesn't make political sense to cave at this point. Anyone got a good explanation?
...Or they stand out in some horrid way from regular society that they were forced to start thinking about everything everyone else takes for granted.
Like, for example, they're gay.
That's an effective idea. But let's take it one step further.
Contact your senators and house member. Tell them you will support any opponent they have in the next primary with your money and your vote if they support telcom immunity.
Probably because they are smart enough to stay away. It isn't a question of being smart, it is a question of just how hungry for power are you? Most aren't, and are happy enough succeeding privately.
You aren't different because you're smarter than everyone else. You're different because you're a giant douche who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
2. Profit from Breaking Law (...in this case, get government contracts...) 3. Pay Congresscritters to Immunize You From Law 4. ...
5. PROFIT!!!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Yeah, coulda done without that...
No, the fact is that I don't do things just because everyone else does things. I do things because I know what I'm doing. And if I don't know what I'm about to do, I learn what it is first. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone. I just don't do things I don't understand which is what makes me different from the crowds of lemmings.
You probably believe in God and probably don't really understand that yourself... if you did, you probably wouldn't believe it.
(With apologies to the folks who made "The Usual Suspects...)
This bill does not, as far as I know, protect telecom companies from their customers canceling their phone service when they find out what they did. That immunity won't keep them in business when people refuse to pay their phone bills en-masse.
If we, THE PEOPLE, acted to take back the power, we would have it by about tomorrow morning. Good thing for the Forces of Evil (TM) that we can't agree on even such a trivial thing like whether that beer is greater tasting, or less filling.
What a shame.
Maybe we can somehow connect all of the founding fathers to generators. They're spinning in their graves so fast right now we could probably power the whole eastern seaboard!
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
All I know is that we just had a 5-4 supreme court vote in favor of law and order. If McCain won, that balance will probably tilt into 4-5 hell. I know Obama would appoint someone that favors the rule of law. The fact that he's much more pro-civil rights is just sweet icing on the cake. I'm willing to just say fuck it when it comes to health care. I oppose national health care, but I care a lot more about civil rights. And, since any Republican is going to outspend any Democrat, it seems that the money might as well go to health care.
Cow Cube
When they call this a "compromise" bill, they aren't kidding. It will compromise our civil liberties, by letting the telecoms know that they can get away with helping illegal actions scot-free.
I worry that this will receive strong bi-partisan support, because a future Democrat administration will see the advantages of this, and want it in place in advance.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Smart person, thinking person, intellectual. These are all labels that you give yourself to make yourself feel better. But they're destructive in that they put everyone else down. They alienate you from the "crowds of lemmings."
How about instead of focusing on everything you disagree on, you actually find some common ground with people, and attempt to have a conversation? You might find that if you're actually nice to people, they'll be nice back, even if they think you're a nigger-loving commie heathen faggot.
If you refuse to get along with people you disagree with, you really are a giant douche who thinks he's better than everyone else.
First off, let me say that I don't disagree with your desire to improve the level of freedom in society. I am not all the kind of person that likes to follow orders or authority of any kind. However, I think you are taken by propaganda stirred up by lawyers to get more money, and there's a better way to achieve your end.
Uhm - if they can't, that means you live in a fascist state. Fascism does not equate directly to 'more government control over eg. taxes' but to government and big business working so tightly together that it really makes no sense to differentiate.
You miss the point that fascism is evil because it concentrates power, and so does socialism, for that matter. If corporations are operating independently of the government, then you do not have a fascist state. Conversely, if you have no corporations and just the government, you have a very evil state because power is concentrated.
In the ideal case, from the perspective of freedom and power distribution, one would have lots of little corporations and a little government, but instead, we have an enormous government and a lot of big corporations. But, we don't, and so, you have to weight things in terms of balances of power..
So, what's the way?
You say that you should be allowed to sue the corporation for complying with the government request. I'd say, let's have legislation that waives sovereign immunity for damages caused by warrantless wiretapping, and let all your rich lawyers waive sovereign immunity and go after the government, instead.
It's not AT&T's fault, that they complied with the orders of a bunch of Feds. When you've got any number of federal agencies that could come down on the AT&T, AT&T doesn't have any choice, really, any more than Krupp had any choices to make when the SS walked in and said, we think a few party members should be on the board. Government has armies and prisons and corporations do not.
I understand the logic to go after AT&T... they have deep pockets and little power to resist a subpoena to "protect" the government. But the problem here is the government, not the corporation, and that's where you need to go with it.
This is my sig.
Watch the vote live thanks to C-SPAN http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
You might want to read this article over at the Register.
Sounds an awful like Apple might be positioning itself to do some eavesdropping of its own.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I can't beleive the Dems rolled over on this...
I'm a democrat and I am ashamed that Reid and Pelossi(sp?) rolled over on this like they have on other things.
My only unfounded hypothesis on this is that the illegal wiretapping was also performed on Congressmen/Women and so if they investigate then they uncover their own scat.
Conspiracy theory...? maybe, but I'm open to other suggestions why our Democratic Party is rolling over like a an old Ford Explorer with faulty tires on it.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
"Gosh, I love it when a guy stands up and brags about his own ignorance."
I appreciate that you love your personal pastime, but could you avoid replying to me when you plan to do it?
Thanks.