Telecom Amnesty Foes On the Move 363
ya really notes a blog posting up at Wired reporting that foes of the Telecom Amnesty Bill have mounted a campaign on Barack Obama's own website. Though the group was created only days ago, on June 25, it has grown to be the fifth largest among 7,000 such groups, just short of Women for Obama. Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again. Meanwhile, left-leaning bloggers and libertarian activists have joined forces to raise $325,000 in the fight against the legislation. "Their Blue America PAC is already targeting House Democrats who voted for the bill, including placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post [an image appears in the Wired story] slamming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who claimed credit for creating the so-called compromise bill. The coalition plans to follow-up with a Ron Paul-style money bomb, which will be used to target key Senators..."
From what I can tell (Score:5, Interesting)
it's now the fourth largest.
If you believe in this, go join the group. It takes about thirty seconds to sign up, and there's only 2000 more people needed to make it the third largest. I've seen more comments than that on many political posts, so I have little doubt that we can, in theory, rustle up that many people.
Widely Known (Score:5, Interesting)
He is repeating inflated security concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike
Sad, I thought that he was brighter than that.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
It was bound to happen. Reading the "walks-on-water" posts by supporters on various websites has been a laugh. Who really believes in election-year promises anyway? The democrats walked away from their traditional base of labor and minorities during the Clinton administration, but the younger voters don't remember that. Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter. Oil and finance on one side, media and entertainment on the other, both marching in lockstep toward corporate-controlled fascism.
The only thing Obama (or anyone else) could do to impress me is tell the far left/right to f*ck off, but since they're the ones controlling their respective parties, it ain't gonna happen. The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.
In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!
AT&T's take (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T took down their ad, but it was pretty funny in a sick sort of way. If you didn't catch their new ad, it was on their bill-pay site last week. I kept a little archive of it here [readingfordummies.com]. Enjoy.
Reid
Re:Widely Known (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
Actually, guilt by negligence is punishable in many cases by sentences equally harsh to active participation in a crime.
In this case the crime is high treason (im not talking about the immunity, i'm talking about the fact this "stops the illegal spying" by making it legal and letting it continue)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
When did begrudgingly accepting a compromise mean "being a sock puppet"? I swear, you people have this out of proportion.
The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.
Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the mythical beast with an elephant's head on one end and the head of an ass on the other? Because since the corporations own both the Democrats and Republicans, we now have a one party system with two wings, the Democrat wing and the Republican wing, both of which are beholden to the multinational (foreign) corporations and neither of which is beholden to "we, the people".
When someone who can't vote has more influence over a representative than a voter he is supposed to represent, you no longer have a representative democracy. When money counts for more than votes you have a plutocracy.
So, in the immortal words of Walt Kelly, you can vote for Tweddle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber. No matter who wins, you lose. Or, you can "waste" your vote on a loser, as I plan on doing. You vote doesn't matter anyway as the fix is in, you might as well make your displeasure knows in the only meaningful way possible - vote for "other".
Fittingly, the saying at the bottom of the page is "anything free is worth what you pay for it", which is part of the Gospel Of Mammon. Mammon is the US's national religion. Bow to the god of money or suffer.
Join this group, write your senators (Score:2, Interesting)
Senator Obama's promise to "fix this" when he becomes president is grossly illogical and pompous (not elitist). What if he loses the election? Then what will he be left with? A vote for a bill that he doesn't support and no chance to "fix it." If you don't agree with the bill, DON'T VOTE FOR IT!
If this issue is important to you, take the time to join this group and make it the biggest group on Obama's website. Then take the time to write your senators about this issue. I wrote both of mine:
Senator, I was filled with dismay as Democrats in the House of Representatives caved in and voted to give telecoms retroactive immunity. I feel that the representatives did a better job of representing the telecoms than they did of representing the people.
Ours is a country of laws. Where every man and woman is considered equal. A land not only of opportunities, but also a place where people are held accountable for their misdeeds.
Perhaps you and others feel that we should drop the pretense of being a fair and noble country and let President Bush and the telecoms off the hook given the president's short remaining time in office.
I would argue that this is precisely why we need to hold firm on this bright-line issue -- people who break the law should be held accountable, companies that break the law should be accountable.
Be assured that my vote depends on your decision.
I can't beleive this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Barack Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
Threatening the telecoms with prosecution will encourage them to cooperate with any future investigations into warrantless wiretapping. If they were coerced, I have no problem with granting them immunity based upon their providing testimony in court to that effect.
If, as the Bush administration claims, there was no violation of the law, then no immunity is needed. If they were forced to hand over data, then they aren't guilty and no immunity is needed in this case as well.
Obama said up-front exactly what 'change' is (Score:5, Interesting)
...if you weren't reading his books or listening to his speeches (as opposed to the sound bites), I suppose you could miss it. The "new kind of politics" he discusses isn't a change in what he as a Democrat supports; the change is in how he goes about supporting it.
If you've been paying attention to American politics lately, you'll notice that you've got the Left and the Right, and they pretty much hate each other. The Left paints the Right as being a bunch of religious war-mongering nutjobs who hate people having freedoms their religion proscribes, and the Right paints the Left as being a bunch of new-age peacenick nutjobs with no regard for personal accountability who hate their religion.
The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!"). Read A Call To Renewal [barackobama.com], and appreciate how its message different from the way Democratic politicians have behaved in the past. Obama is promising a presidency which is serious about the "uniter, not a divider" thing, even while still effectively backing the Democrats' agenda -- by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base. For someone young enough to have never seen American politics that aren't divisive, that's genuine change.
The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.
So there you are -- real promises and expectations, described by 'hope' this and 'change' that.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.
actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.
Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama [aclu.org] and McCain [aclu.org] would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.
Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, yes! *googles for it* I remember this now. The ancient democracy in which lizards rule [williams.edu]. Now, if only we could get people to understand that 'lizards' == 'Democans and Republicrats'.
Excellent post, BTW.
Re:Widely Known (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.
Well, forgiveness is certainly what this bill is all about. FISA courts, as laid out in past, continue with or without this bill. There's no reason for the bill at all except for the forgiveness you're looking for.
However, that's not how forgiveness works. You can't legislate it. You can, however, as this bill shows, attempt to legislate an amnesty giveaway to a bunch of unrepentant crooks.
What this country actually needs is justice. You commit a crime, you admit it and accept responsibility for it, and then you get forgiveness. I don't see any responsibility being taken, here -- I see a whole lot of weaseling out and not paying for things, which has been the way of life, to an absurd extreme, of this administration, and it friends. It's also been a way of life for AT&T.
What was done during Bush's years has been illegal, and there should be justice. AT&T was paid to break the law, so they did. Why sweep that under the rug and pretend that doing so will make things better? There's no reason for immunity going forward or back.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. 2 of the criminal corporations that were treated the way you say are the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry.
Workers were exposed to asbestos for decades, while asbestos companies like Johns-Mansville knew that it was causing lung cancer, according to medical reports in their files that came out after they were sued, but they didn't warn those workers. When it all came out, they were hit with millions of dollars in damages, and went bankrupt. You don't see much asbestos around any more.
The tobacco industry is unfortunately so wealthy and politically powerful that they're almost (but not quite) untouchable. They got hit with millions of dollars in damages. The public health people who took them on were pretty smart, and they got money to pay for anti-tobacco education, publicity campaigns, etc. In a big court case, huge amounts of documents get subpoenaed, but the defendants insist on making them confidential as one of the conditions for settling (see the IBM antitrust case). This time, the public health people insisted on making the documents public, and put them in a great database, which revealed their devious methods, and exposed the people we trusted who betrayed us (search Google for "tobacco documents").
Unfortunately, the corporate executives didn't go to jail, even though they killed more people (400,000/year from cigarettes) than Osama bin Laden ever will.
Given the sentiments you expressed, you would probably enjoy reading Ted Rall http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/ [gocomics.com], although you probably do already. He was warning us from the very first about Obama.
Not yet a shooting war. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to understand a shooting war, consider the war between ITT (vis a vis Pinochet) and Chile, when Allende nationalized their copper mines. Or consider the war between ITT and the US, during WWII, when ITT was making the German bombers, and the US bombed the German planes.
Or consider the war between the World Bank and Zaire, when Mobutu fled to France with all those IMF loans, Kabila declined to make payments on Mobutu's stolen funds, and within *3 months* there was a mobilized army led by the son of the IMF's representative to Zaire, which kept a shooting war going until *3 months* after Kabila said "okay, we'll start paying on Mobutu's money."
Note, too, that in both the case of Allende and Kabila, they were murdered, probably just to show the people that the corporations, not the citizens, are in charge.
Corporations are all too ready to commit murder and mass murder to claim power. Think before you act.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
Whenever I see comments like this, I wonder if the commentator is genuinely misinformed or if they're too intellectually lazy to find out what Obama means by "hope" and "change". Hint: He's written two books.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)