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.
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.
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!
Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.
here's my idea on how it could 'hit home':
wiretap a bunch of random people. scan for 'juicy embarassing things' that they are saying. of course (...) make sure its not a national security thing - just find embarassing personal things that people are saying in private.
THEN PUBLISH TRANSCRIPTS. once a day, from some random person, in the newspaper. keep doing it until people SEE THE LIGHT.
eventually people will see that the talk is mostly personal stuff and not at all 'security issues'. at THAT point, they'll finally understand that this is just a power grab to scare and control the population.
but until enough innocent people get caught in the net (heh heh) - nothing will change and our liberties will continue to erode.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Laura at War & Piece has two good question for Pelosi that get to the gist of the issue:
Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?
Answers: Yes and yes.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I wonder if Dodd's "I will fillibuster any telecom immunity" is still valid - or if that was just during the election cycle.
Your vote is never a throw away vote, even if it's for a third party.
No, your vote is *always* a throwaway *unless* you vote for a third party.
Only with a third party is worthwhile change possible. Voting either of the two major parties is saying that the worst excesses of either are what you want to see more of.
Third parties face huge barriers to entry due to a collection of factors. The first cut: a lot of intelligent folks simply stay away from politics in the first place due to these and other issues. The second cut: those interested in pursuing all but the most minor political positions really must be career-minded the way things work today. To have a viable career, this pretty much means running with one of the two major parties. (Head of snake, meet tail.) The third cut: unfortunately, many of the folks left after the first two cuts seem to be wholly unelectable. As in, if you read their platforms in detail, you realize that they're fscking nuts. At best, they are well-meaning but lack requisite insight into human nature and/or the real-world ramifications of their lofty ideas. At worst, they're really nuts: spouting off about eliminating UFO influence on our toaster ovens and the like. (My state's voter pre-election voter pamphlets occasionally offer excellent comic-relief while researching candidate backgrounds.)
The more interesting question is why candidates in the "second cut" above don't rally around a third party. Part of the reason is simple: virtually none of the USA voting districts use a ranking-based system of election, such as IRV or Condorcet. This provides a barrier to entry most notably seen in the 2004 US Presidential election as the "Nader effect". Nader was never a viable candidate to win, so many voters felt they were forced to choose between "voting their conscience" and "voting for the lesser evil." The real effects are much deeper, however. An excellent third-party or independent candidate might win an election in such a system by garnering a lot of first and second place votes from voters across the spectrum. The effect could be rather de-polarizing, and would allow a foot in the door for new parties.
Now all of this neglects other serious issues, such as campaign funding and media influence and coverage. Third-parties have an additional barrier in the form of achieving sufficient fund-raising to win a campaign, and achieving media backing. As sad as it sounds, it is absolutely necessary today to get the word out and successfully market a candidate to the people in order to win a contested election. This can require large to massive amounts of money... and the strings that go along with that.
Media outlets get to further warp the funding/marketing issues by providing whatever balance and bias of coverage they want. Whether through carelessness, explicit bias, or even implicit biases, mass-media has come to have an astonishing effect on distorting our democratic processes. Not garnering media support can leave a campaign dead in the water. As a simple example, consider the viability of a candidate for any high-level office with a platform of serious media ownership reform. I have trouble imagining that getting very far.