Retroactive Telco Immunity Opponents Buying TV Ad 291
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."
A TV ad? (Score:5, Funny)
Blarney: mad.
One does just fine
With simple sign.
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Something more on topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [wikipedia.org]
Rooms designed for the interception of all telecom traffic,
including net activity, and not just for ppl on terror watch
list but all US citizens.
Direct link, because editors are lazy (Score:5, Informative)
The link is to a Wired blog. The direct link is http://getfisaright.net/promote [getfisaright.net]. 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.
Re:Direct link, because editors are lazy (Score:5, Interesting)
And too bad the ad is incredibly forgettable and badly done. Most people will not even pay attention to it.
It's a waste of time to put that on the air, the money is better spent elsewhere... Like paying to get a real in your face ad made, they need to not hold any punches, they need to be blunt.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at work, where the site hosting the actual video is blocked. Otherwise I probably would have commented on that as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or maybe they do. For one, this gives you a lot more "connection" to the campaign if you can point to the screen and say "that is my ad" instead of "I made a small donation to the people who run the fund that bought this ad".
Two, politically, it's also an interesting move, because it puts actual people behind the ad campaign instead of some anonymous organisation. We will know when we see the PR in the mainstream press. If they play their cards right, the mainstream media might well write "thousands of peop
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point - but what wasn't mentioned in the TFS was that the cost of the ads (as mentioned in the Wired blog) goes up to almost $2000. How many people are going to pay that kind of money to get this ad on the air? And that was for a spot on CNN (between 6PM and midnight - how much you want to be it gets shown closer to midnight?), not during American Idle* or some other popular show - which would probably cost much more, as well as being much more effective.
Maybe they could go both routes - hav
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Funny)
These liberals are just using this as an excuse to keep the loophole in the law so that they can accuse the Government of spying (yet another conspiracy theory!) and get rich! That's why all of the liberal leaning states are the wealthiest in the country - they sue innocent corporations! That's why the Trial Lawyers support the Liberal Democrats! They're trying to destroy our Republic, Capitalism, and the American way!
Then, they have the stupidity to try to ban our guns! They use the "Civil Liberties" as a screen but when it comes to the freedom to bare arms, do they fight for that? Nooooooo! We should put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Then those Liberals will fight for it!
Sincerely,
Average American who is educated by TV and Radio.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
Depending on what the person looks like, I think they should have the right to bare a lot more than their arms. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
bears (Score:2)
Stephen Colbert is gonna be pissed....
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Funny)
HTML Tags. (Score:2)
Never has a nick matched a post so well.
I couldn't find the HTML tags for humor and satire.
Re: (Score:2)
<span class="humor satire"> ?
No, the liberals sold out on this one too (Score:2)
Bad Ad (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly it's hard to call this news in any sense, when it can just as easily be summarised as 'Another bad home-made political advert added to a pay-to-play-on-TV youtube.'
These are important issues folks, but let's not wet our pants every time someone mentions wiretapping.
Throw the bums out. All of them (Score:4, Interesting)
and then throw them out again.
Never vote for an incumbant again, at least
for another 3 election cycles.
I don't care, throw them out. You think you
have a 'good guy' in congress? You're wrong.
Throw them out.
All of them. /that/ is the fix for so called special interest lobbies. Take away their power.
That is the only fix.
Better that the government never get anything
else done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real fix is to separate politicians from money. Give them and their family a "free ride for life" if that's what it takes and we'll STILL save money. Prevent them from ever being a corporate leader and stop the revolving doors from spinning. Prevent them from accepting ANY money at all and they cannot be bribed as easily. Then they can focus on voting their conscience and ideals, whatever they may be, because they will be "above" money.
Doing something like that will find the welfare of the nation as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real fix is to liberate politicians from the need to bow to corporations to sponsor their elections, simple as that. Even if you give the politician a "free ride" once he's in, how did he get in if he didn't accept brib... I mean, campaign contributions from companies?
I prefer our model. Our politicians and parties get tax money for their campaign. That's right, you heard me, tax money. You get at least 2% of your voters to vote for you and you're eligible for campaign money. WE pay our politicians to l
Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:5, Informative)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
I have no idea what this means, but my number is lower than yours...see I'm not new here, I just don't understand most of the stupid memes ;-)
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from the fact that it was a republican administration that initiated the illegal program, four senior republican lawmakers who attempted to expand it with the "Terrorist Surveillance Act (2006)" and a senior republican (Specter R-PA) who introduced immunity, I can completely see how it wasn't the republicans who created the wiretapping and immunity mess...
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that the program was divulged in 2005, and was active well before that, and that the current congress wasn't seated until January, 2007...
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While the democrats are certainly not blameless (especially Pelosi and Reed) you might notice that only one republican congress person (Johnson R-IL) and not a single republican senator voted against this bill.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd make a great lawyer or politician... ignoring the facts that are inconvenient to you.
"This mess" wasn't created fully formed YESTERDAY.
Republicans were only recently unseated out of BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
They had is majority in both houses of congress during two terms of a republican president.
Yeah, the Dems surely could have done more with their newly won majorities.
However, let's not LIE about who had full posession of the ball before this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Show us the percentage of republicans who voted for and against and the percentage of democrats, and point out the democrats who are only democrat in name, like Pelosi.
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress doesn't actually write most laws from scratch, especially laws like this. They're given a nontrivial amount of prodding, assistance, etc. by the corporate sponsors.
Re: (Score:2)
Sponsor: [loc.gov] Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] Democrat [wikipedia.org] Cosponsors Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] Republican [wikipedia.org] Rep Smith, Lamar Republican [wikipedia.org]
The sponsor is a Democrat, the cosponsors are Republicans. Both wings of the Corporate Party are behind this dastardly abomination.
This Presidential election, vote Barr, McKinney, or Baldwin [wikipedia.org]. Unless, of course, you want your corporate overlords to keep taking your rights and ecology away.
Great Resource (Score:2)
If SaysMe TV does work, all of us who are pissed at the direction things have taken the past 8+ years should remember it and use it in the future. I am very angry about FISA, and intend to punish those of my congresspeople who voted for it. Sadly, I don't think SaysMeTV will help us in this fight. Still, it's a great tool if it works.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and my money will be spent to fund competitors to Rep Spratt (D-SC) who voted for the FISA bill, and to get John McCains sock puppet Lindsey Graham (R-SC) out of office as well.
If it actually made sense, I'd go for Brewsters theory of None of the Above, but alas whoever is not a Dem or Republican is probably the right choice this time as the two mainstream parties need to have a timeout in the corner and remember what their job truly is
I'm not paying. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not gonna pay. It is not because I liked or agreed with the wiretapping. However I support the Immunity. In general going against the Immunity is saying I hate big companies because they have more money then I do. Having them fined or jailed will do nothing positive. If you fine them you pay the fine as it will increase costs. If you put the guys in jail you pay to put someone who isn't a threat to society, and pay to keep him there. This case took a while and didn't get marked illegal 100% there was
Re:I'm not paying. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about punishing TelCos. It's about the Discovery Phase of such a trial. In the discovery phase we'd find out about who they tapped and what they listened to. That's important because knowing this admin, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect it possible that they might be lying when they said "we only tapped the phones of folks who spoke to overseas terror suspects."
Maybe. Just MAYBE, they listened to a few more people who weren't speaking to terror suspects. Maybe they even listened to purely domestic calls. Honestly the actions of this admin sound a heck of a lot like what Nixon was forced to resign over.
With the immunity in this bill, any lawsuit against TelCos is thrown out even beofre the discovery phase.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general going against the Immunity is saying I hate big companies because they have more money then I do.
Bullshit. It's saying that you support upholding of the law. No one gets to break the law just because someone says it's ok.
Having them fined or jailed will do nothing positive.
No more or less positive than punishing anyone else who breaks the law. They broke the law, so let them be punished.
I'm still pissed too. I've left the D party. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm done with party politics. The leadership of both political parties have shown that they are willing to trade the legal principals of our founding fathers for short-term political gain. The parties have acted to retain their own power and authority at the expense of our Bill of Rights. This is simply unacceptable.
But the solution cannot be found in insular political organization. That is, organized liberals cannot fix this. Nor can organized conservatives. The only solution here is for the population of liberals and conservatives to realize they have a greater sense of purpose by opposing the GOP/DNC lock on national politics. Political enemies must become friends in order to oust the real enemy of freedom. And they have a lock on all the power the state can muster.
I sadly believe that our republic has already fallen, and the "great experiment" is now over.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't argu
Publicity stunts and shams (Score:2)
The last thing these people (should) want is to bring this issue into the consciousness of the general public. And I hardly doubt companies like AT and T and their clones need donations. At best the call for donations is a sleazy publicity stunt. At worst it shows how cheap and money grubbing they are.
Accuracy (Score:2, Insightful)
The gentleman doth protest too much (Score:3, Insightful)
immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason.
It is neither "spying on American citizens" nor "for no reason." It's pathetic that you've got to make it sound like something more sinister than it is in order to try and scare people to your side of the fence on the issue. If Microsoft had written that article summary, people would be screaming "FUD!"
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant. Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware are you not that the risk of an American being killed by a terrorist is just about the lowest of all the things likely to kill one right ? Cars kill the most, ciggarettes and burger king are pretty high on the list, PLANE CRASHES are higher than terrorists ... heck SUICIDE is a higher risk.
You American's kill more of each other every year than the terrorists can pull of combined ! You kill yourselves more often than they have managed to do !
If I were you, I would stop worrying about a few people whom you think is fighting a religious war (they are not, suicide missions occur in all wars and all religions, you yourselves send your spies out on missions with arsenic pills in their pockets, the Japanese fought you with suicide pilots - and they were of two religions, neither of which promised any reward for it - the 'muslim extremisms' thing is a great big lie which THEY love to tell as much as your leaders love to repeat it) and worry a little more about why it seems that you cannot stop blowing peoples brains out (note: I said nothing about owning guns, I'm in FAVOUR of gun-ownership, for a reasonable value of 'gun' at least - I am talking about what you DO with them, I'm sure if we banned guns you would just end up killing each other with knives so it's probably a different problem altogether).
Short version: Terrorist won't do anything to you. Other American's are about 500 times more likely to kill you... or maybe that is WHY you are happy to defend the government listening on your neighbours' phone calls without so much as a judicial review ? It's just easier to pretend you fear terrorists than admit you fear the guy next door ? Especially if he has a darker skin than yours ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just easier to pretend you fear terrorists than admit you fear the guy next door ? Especially if he has a darker skin than yours ?
Hey! My skin's darker than my neighbors, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...well then: IF ALL SURVELLIANCE that went on was on the up and up then the Telcos have nothing to worry about.
We have transparency in governance in democracies for a reason. If there
is no reason for shame then we can lay everything out in the open. If
there are genuine national security concerns, we can proceed with the
process of the courts and legislature accomodating for that too.
There's no good excuse for violating our own most fundemental rules,
and our own most fundemental principles.
No one is above th
Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
The "conversations originating overseas" were illegal to monitor too! If they're going to break the fucking law to do that, then nothing stops them from doing exactly the same to Grandma and little Jimmy.
You're essentially saying, "they broke the law, but that's okay because they wouldn't break the law" which is just fucking stupid.
No, it shouldn't! Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist. And I'm vastly more likely to die in a car wreck, or by slipping in the shower, or doing any number of other things that everybody does every day without particularly worrying about it. So no, this hysterical, cowardly obsession with the terrorist boogeymen should not be in everybody's fucking interest!
I'm more scared of the Bush administration than I am of the terrorists. By a wide margin.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the government does fewer than about 475 illegal wiretaps per year, on average. I think it's reasonable to guess that the number is larger than that -- but more importantly, we can't know the real number because the damn thing's a secret, which itself is part of the problem!
Yes and no. I agree that it's about prin
Re: (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored. Your chats with Grandma about what to get little Jimmy for his birthday are of no interest to anyone and cannot be legally intercepted without a warrant. Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Any conversation with anyone outside the US can be intercepted, not just the ones that originate overseas or are from known or suspected terrorist organizations. If Grandma is in London, England, or even London, Ontario, the conversation can now be legally listened to. Also, the FISA courts were set up as a rubber stamp. IIRC, there's a special room at the NSA where a federal judge does nothing but grant warrants for FISA wiretaps. The whole process takes about five minutes, and the warrant was retroact
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any conversation with anyone outside the US can be intercepted, not just the ones that originate overseas or are from known or suspected terrorist organizations. If Grandma is in London, England, or even London, Ontario, the conversation can now be legally listened to. Also, the FISA courts were set up as a rubber stamp. IIRC, there's a special room at the NSA where a federal judge does nothing but grant warrants for FISA wiretaps. The whole process takes about five minutes, and the warrant was retroactive for a few days so that nothing important would be missed. The current administration felt that this was too restrictive, so they just stopped following the law.
With disposable phones so prevalent now, how do you know which call to listen in on? This is why the gov't can't get a warrant. If you think about how it works, you will understand. Take this hypothetical:
A call comes in from Pakistan from an unknown number. It's a disposable cell phone in the northern "tribal" region to a disposable phone in Washington DC. Another call comes in from London to the same number. Another call comes in from Iran to that number. How do you know if it's tap-worthy? There'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If some government official came up to me and told me they were investigating a suspected terrorist and they needed such and such help from me, I'd assume it was a legit request and comply. I'd also assume that the government was the one who would assume the consequences if the request was not valid and I did something I wasn't supposed to do. If it was Joe Blow coming to me and asking me to allow him to wiretap someone, that's different. A government official comes to your door with credentials of authorit
Re: (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored.
"We'd never monitor domestic calls. Take our word for it."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to find out what next big operation terrorists are planning against us ought to be everybody's interest, and perhaps it would be if most Democrat weren't afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Or, y'know, those of us who believe in due process. We don't throw our principles out when dealing with our enemies... otherwise they mean nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, with proper warrants....
You don't need a warrant to tap a foreign phone. The forth does not apply overseas.
Fine. What reason then? Cite instances where the American government has wiretapped an American citizen and either explained clearly and completely why they did it, or
My standards of proof are higher than just taking mush-mouthed claims of "national security" to heart and walking away. What credible threats were investigated and what, if any, convictions (hell, what charges even) stemmed from any of the illegal wiretapping?
Sorry if you hold "national security" to such a low regard. Do you leave your doors unlocked when you go to bed? If not, I assume it's because you value YOUR security. Why then would you be so willing play fast and loose with MY security and everyone else's around you?
Sure, I'm not going to give our government unlimited power in the name of national security, but I don't really have a problem if they record a phone call c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with this. The argument over the warrantless wiretapping involves proponents in the administration who argue that FISA requirements were superseded by the resolutions passed in response to the 9/11 attacks. They're basically arguing that they're not obligated to get warrants when they believe that one end of the communication is a member of Al Quaeda or an individual supporting Al Quaeda in some way.
The
Not yet in my area (Score:2)
Before I even looked at the /. comments, I clicked through to the Wired article, found the link to saysme.tv, and tried to buy an ad. However, I live in St. Louis, and was very disappointed to see that they don't yet support my area, nor any nearby cites up to and including Chicago and Memphis.
Of course, I'm not a cable subscriber, I watch satellite TV. Anyone know if/when DirectTV and DishNetwork will be supported?
Also, while some areas are cheap, some are expensive. I expect that satellite TV will also
Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no good reason
Their was a reason for the spying. You may think it was good, most Slashdot members appear to believe that it was not a good reason, but a reason was given (after the fact). That reason being, they were spying on international calls believed to be involved in terrorism.
I'm not defending the ISP's or the Government, but the original post is misleading IMO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no good reason
Their was a reason for the spying. You may think it was good, most Slashdot members appear to believe that it was not a good reason, but a reason was given (after the fact). That reason being, they were spying on international calls believed to be involved in terrorism.
I'm not defending the ISP's or the Government, but the original post is misleading IMO.
I agree completely. I can think of 3000+ good reasons. Actually, that's not true because those 3000+ are dead and gone.
I can think of 300,000,000 reasons.
Don't get me wrong, there are valid complaints against the bill, but when you start out saying obvious lies like, "for no reason", you lose all credibility.
Besides, this seems like a money grab to me. They are trying to raise money to bribe...er... lobby congress people. If the telecom bill were THAT unpopular, these asshats in congress would be voted o
A free alternative defense: (Score:5, Funny)
4th Amendment? 1st Amendment! (Score:4, Informative)
Much ado is made about the violation of the 4th amendment embodied in the passage of the FISA bill. While I find that to be more than sufficient to find the passage of that bill to be a violation of the oath to defend The Constitution, I believe the violation of the 1st is more troubling.
The 1st Amendment documents fact that our right to petition the government for redress of grievances cannot be infringed. Bringing a civil suit is exactly what it is talking about. The judicial is the branch of government that has the authority to grant redress. It is the sole prerogative of the judicial to decide whether a law has been infringed. Congress can change the laws going forward, but once a petition for redress reaches the court, it is out of the hands of the legislative.
While I completely agree that the infringement of the 4th in the name of the war on terror is wrong, it is not a clear attempt to usurp the sovereign power of the American people to control the powers of government. The violation of the 1st amendment's right to petition for redress is the most egregious portion of the FISA bill.
As an aside; one can also see the attempted shift in the balance of power with the newly merged PRO-IP/PIRATE acts. The way it has worked (in all cases, as far as I know), is that government cases against the people were criminal, and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People's cases against the government or agents of government are civil, requiring preponderance of evidence. Some are holding hope for the possibility of criminal action, but even so, with the FISA bill, we lost the right to preponderance of evidence. With PRO-IP/PIRATE, the government is taking preponderance in place of beyond reasonable doubt. It is extremely telling and disturbing to me that the government is simultaneously saying that the people cannot be trusted with preponderance, and that the government need not be limited to beyond reasonable doubt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because being against telco immunity means your a tree-hugger? WTF?
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner.
Not "ironic", just hypocritical.
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to argue.
irony [reference.com]
-noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Situational_irony [wikipedia.org]
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
I AM against telco immunity. I'm against domestic wiretapping. I'm against an administration that blatantly disregards the Constitution and regards everything they do as legal, simply because they are doing it. However, hard experience has taught me that contributing to ANY cause gets me on mailing lists for "similar" causes - whether I want to be or not.
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.
In the same way, although they are aware that they bother, irritate, or even outrage former givers by sending out reminder after reminder about all the giving opportunities available to previous donaters, they know that they will receive more money, overall, by doing this.
Unfortunately, some gut part of me reacts objectionably to this, and I cannot in good conscience send money their way.
Re: (Score:2)
i know what you mean - each year my wife and i donate alot to diffrent charities at the end of the year - if we had a better year we donate more.
the other day there was a guy who is one of the ones paied to stand infront of a store and try and get money.. he was trying to get money for one of the charities we already donate to ..
this wasn't a satisfactory answer for him.. he kept pushing for me to by some thing they had out there or to donate more right then.. even walking away wasn't working as he actual
Re: (Score:2)
Probably more effective to call and/or find out people in upper levels of the organization and write/call them.
Good Charities and Bad Charities (Score:5, Informative)
"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 [charitynavigator.org], 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.
too high a price ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I'm probably in the minority here. I have hugged a tree. I like trees. They don't complain, they look pretty, and they provide me with oxygen. And unlike with "higher" primates you can't get AIDS or any other social disease from hugging a tree. Trees rock, primates are mainly assholes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wacko-wack... I looked up "primate" in WordWeb after I posted:
Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet
I don't have good eyesight nor flexible hands and feet so it seems that I am not a primate. Thank goodness for that!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the reply. In all seriousness I do very much love trees just for their aesthetic beauty. The fact that they help curb pollution and are vital to the creation of oxygen is certainly good, but perhaps less intuitive. One doesn't need to be an Environmentalist nor a Radical to love trees. Factories and parking lots have their utility in the modern world and it should be accepted that it is implausible to get rid of them. Cities like where I live (Toronto) have Lots of parks (trees) and even now the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you will end up on "Affiliates with wabcjok treehuggers, not patriotic, possible terrorist" list that government has anyway. Plus you will be on "funds anti-patriotic organizations" list. That's one hell of skeleton in your closet even if that ad does not get broadcasted (Will some TV station have balls to accept this deal? Most likely it will get stopped on executive level).
People tried something like this with Samizdat in Communist times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_77 [wikipedia.org] It didn't end well for most of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (Score:5, Informative)
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 [senate.gov] at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for that! Here's the list of both Democrats AND Republicans who voted for or against it, from the link you provided. I don't know where the GP got off just listing Democrats, both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people.
It looks like my Senators (bolded) cancelled each other out. The Republican candidate for President didn't even bother to show up for the vote.
Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes, they do. At least one of my Senators (Durbin) usually votes the way I would and did so on this bill. He's one of the few politicians I vote for rather than choosing the lesser of two evils (or third party when possible), and its amazing that he can keep getting elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Clinton voted No.
Here's a link [huffingtonpost.com]
clinton voted no because (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. Obama needs Telco Money more than her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you blind?
In my post - I posted a link - she voted NO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His name is GREAT for mixing with appropriate suffixes and other words...Obamania, Feauxbama, Obamaholics, Obamaphobe, Obamaphile...
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people who would be inclined to defend Obama on other issues are pretty pissed about this one, so expect any apologists to come from his base.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not the right list. The one you want is here. [senate.gov]
Barr anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well abstaining on a bad bill in the Senate subject to cloture is good, because a bill needs 60 votes (not 60%) to proceed. Not voting for cloture is the same as voting not to proceed. However, and for the record, Clinton didn't abstain from this vote, she voted Nay.
Re: (Score:2)
i agree the bailing out of the banks and all the crap they are pulling - sorry.. this country needs to experience a hard hit - if it is another depression then so be it. people now days don't understand how good they have it.. they alwasy want more - they need to fall hard - and realize the onle person who is going to look out for their well being is them selves.
Responsibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
i agree the bailing out of the banks and all the crap they are pull
The problem is one of moral hazard and responsibilities of both political parties. Republicans are supposed to be the bulwark against the excesses of Washington and they've honestly been terrible.
The expansion of the budget deficit under Bush, and I am a Republican, has been utterly foolish and wasteful. The bottom line is, Democrats are the ones that are supposed to be the ones that want to tax and spend and, even if sometimes it is neede
Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, because all those career Democrat politicians are spending their lives working for a government that they are secretly trying to destroy via an economic collapse. Sounds reasonable to me! Seriously, drop the conspiracy theories and realize that everybody thinks they're doing the Right Thing. The problem is that, like practically anybody who has nothing else to do but talk about politics all day, they're idiots and have no idea what they're doing. But there's no vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the American economy.
Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah yes, because all those career Democrat politicians are spending their lives working for a government..... But there's no vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the American economy.
Nationalize everything, and therefor, the government has a lot more power. I don't see what the Dems are doing as maliciously minded. I perfectly concede that they genuinely believe that everything would be better if they ran everything. It's just that, humans have tried socialism over and over again and it simply hasn't worked. You need to have private property and businesses for the economy to work. Everyone knows this. Even Cuba is now gradually increasing private property rights for individual farmers in a bid to increase its own production.
Of all great ironies, though, is that, if we step forward 100 years, Reagan and Clinton will be seen as more alike than apart, and similarly, Bush and Obama will both represent a more activist and centralized government.
Re:It's just a bunch of lawyers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, I'll bite.
the legislative issue on wiretapping was only whether or not a bunch of greedy lawyers want another set of deep pockets to go plundering
When Evil-X left me and my two teenaged daughters for another man (have you any idea what that did to the kids?) I was damned glad to have one of the "greedy lawyers" you hate so much. Likewise when I was forced into bankrupcy because the bitch had run my finances into the ground, I was damned glad I had a "greedy lawyer".
When I got a detached retina this year I was damned glad I had a "greedy surgeon", who charged a lot more than the lawyers. You, sir, have a jealousy problem. And no, IANAL. I do databases at work for a whole lot less maney than the doctors and lawyers I have been GLAD to pay.
Left wing leaders don't care about the spying. They just want another set of excuses to try and destroy the American economy
Odd, when the Republicans were in power everybody I knew was hurting financially, but then again I don't know many rich people.
even more than all their environmental regulation already has
I'm 56. When I was a kid, few had air conditionaing in their cars. But even when it was ninety five degrees farenheight you rolled the windows up driving through Sauget where Monsanto had their plant. Anybody who curses Nixon for signing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act is either a polluter or an idiot, or too young to remember what it was like before environmental regulation.
Now I guess I need to go to the Biters Anonymous meetings again, because IHBT.