Slashdot Mirror
Retroactive Telco Immunity Opponents Buying TV Ad
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both, many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason. And now some of them are trying to do something about it — they're buying an advertisement on cable TV. While it's not entirely clear what good, if any, this will do given that it's too late, at least it's cheap to participate — they're looking for $6 donations. The ideas is that, if more grass-roots groups do this kind of thing, their 'representatives' won't be able to afford to blow them off as easily."
The link is to a Wired blog. The direct link is http://getfisaright.net/promote. And they're not asking for donations of $6, they're asking people to pay to run the ad - which might be $6, or could be a lot more, depending on the market and time of day. I think it would be a lot more efficient if they set up a fund to accept donations and ran the campaign from there.
Apparently they know how to get FISA right, but not how to get their advertising campaign right.
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
"Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in...
The 110th Congress Composition: 282 Democrats - 274 Republicans - 2 Independents. So please tell me how Republicans created this mess?
I'm not sure where you got your list from, but I noticed it leaves off Webb (D-VA), and further searching reveals it doesn't seem to match up with the Senate's own records at all.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
God I hate these arguements about the definition of ironic... Irony is defined by a situation in which the intention (or the expected results) of an action and the action's result are different. So, as applied to the above statement:
Situation: Pro-privacy group receives thousands of e-mails.
The intention: Pro-privacy group works for the privacy of the users of these e-mail addresses
Apparent result: E-mails are sold to a commercial entity, having the pro-privacy group give up the privacy of its members.
This is the definition of irony. In fact, most hypocritical actions are, in fact, ironic.
"I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."
I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator, which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel