Because I won't vote for a major-party candidate. A vote for McCain is absolutely out of the question - I will never vote for a Republican - and Obama has betrayed his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which is in my opinion an utter disqualification (this is over telecommunications amnesty and the FISA bill, although he has been busily running to the "right" ever since he got the nomination).
So I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, probably the Green candidate Cynthia McKinney (who is, ironically enough, both black AND a woman - this is ironic because of the accusations of sexism and racism that were thrown around during the Democratic primaries). It is traditional in America to say that anyone who votes for a third-party candidate in America is "throwing their vote away", because the two major parties are so utterly in control of the system that they effectively OWN it. The American people just get to watch it once in a while.
Here's a YouTube clip from The Simpsons that kind of illustrates the point. It's been tarted up by some political group, but skip to 0:53 and you'll see what I mean.
The FISA law as written allows virtually unregulated spying on Americans. There's a secret FISA court that the Government goes to for warrants. They've turned down less than TEN requests for warrants out of tens of thousands of requests for wiretapping warrants. If they turn it down, the government still has the option to "appeal" the decision, and usually wins. And the government doesn't have to get those warrants before they start spying; the law allows them to get retroactive warrants even days after they start spying.
Nonetheless the Bush administration chose to violate even that pathetic fig leaf of a protection for privacy rights. Secret "black rooms" were installed in internet and telecommunications hubs of major telecommunication companies in the US (which is why more and more internet traffic is being routed around the US these days). The government also made requests to the major telecoms to basically help them spy on their customers. As a result, it's virtually certain that every phone conversation, every email, anything anyone does electronically is being monitored by the government - and we have no way of knowing if that information is being abused, because it's all secret, secret, secret.
There are also programs of "data mining" which amounts to massive electronic profiling of the entire population.
If you're wondering how I've heard about all this, the answer is whistleblowers. People have come forward with information. They are generally punished for doing so, however.
Now, the Democrats in Congress have proven themselves utterly unwilling to take any action to stop this egregious violation of the Constitution. Likewise, the media is far too focused on Sarah Palen and Bristol's bristols (a little English humor for you) to pay any attention to a boring old issue like the conversion of the US into a Big Brother surveillence state.
But some groups, including the ACLU, found a weak point in the conspiracy of silence: the telecommunications companies had broken the law by giving the Bush administration access to electronic communications without a warrant.
So Bush and the Republicans began demanding that the telecoms be given immunity to civil suit by an Act of Congress. The Democrats blocked that one or two times; many "blue dog" (i.e. conservative) Democrats stood with the Republicans, but there were enough progressive politicians to stand it off last year - with the support of an outcry from some of the Democratic "base", liberal activists.
But the Republicans never stop. So telecommunications company amnesty came up again this year. Some Democrats spoke out against it, and Senator Dodd pledged to filibuster it.
Whoops, this is too long; I'll have to split it up here.
During the primaries, Obama pledged to support that filibuster. But after he won the nomination, he not only didn't support the filibuster; he announced well before the vote that while he opposed telecom amnesty, he would vote for the final FISA bill even if it included amnesty. He couldn't have signaled more clearly that he was not going to take a stand (other than with a cynical, flowery bit of oratory) against amnesty.
And the rest of the FISA bill was also absolutely hideous; it took the scrap of figleaf that FISA gave to the right of privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure, and shredded it. Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, so unlike Bush he cannot hide behind the excuse of ignorance. This was a direct violation of his Senatorial oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and in my mind utterly disqualifies him for public office.
What do he and his supporters say about all this? That when he's President, we can trust him to use his dictator-like spying powers responsibly. That overlooks the increasingly high probility that McCain will win the Presidency, of course, and also overlooks the fact that no one should have that sort of power. We threw one King out of this country; now, it seems, we are creating our own God-King, without even the Magna Carta to restrain his power.
Some of his supporters have also evolved a fantasy that mighty President Obama will leap into action as soon as he takes office and put the Justice Department to work investigating and prosecuting the Bush officials who violated the law. This overlooks the fact that 1) Obama has already announced that he will NOT investigate or prosecute during his first (four-year) term), 2) Obama is NOT guaranteed the Presidency, and 3) Bush is virtually certain to issue a blanket preemptive pardon for all crimes to all officials in his administration and to the telecommunications industry as a whole shortly before leaving office. With both civil and criminal action foreclosed, the books will be sealed forever and we, the public, will never know how badly our privacy has been violated - nor what sort of abuses and crimes have been committed with that stolen information.
I should also note (tiredly) that the telecommunications industry donated heavily to many in Congress, some of whom then changed their positions from opposition to support of amnesty. And Obama received a large amount of campaign cash from the telecoms, of course.
Yeah, if you can pass a cookie jar without taking one, then you can trust yourself. And so can we. Which is why I never trust a polytician that kisses babies.
Brian Terrill 7214 Stonecrest st. Stockton, CA 95207
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
So I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, probably the Green candidate Cynthia McKinney (who is, ironically enough, both black AND a woman - this is ironic because of the accusations of sexism and racism that were thrown around during the Democratic primaries). It is traditional in America to say that anyone who votes for a third-party candidate in America is "throwing their vote away", because the two major parties are so utterly in control of the system that they effectively OWN it. The American people just get to watch it once in a while.
Here's a YouTube clip from The Simpsons that kind of illustrates the point. It's been tarted up by some political group, but skip to 0:53 and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVW3-PQ0tFU&feature=related
Tell me more
Re: Tell me more
Nonetheless the Bush administration chose to violate even that pathetic fig leaf of a protection for privacy rights. Secret "black rooms" were installed in internet and telecommunications hubs of major telecommunication companies in the US (which is why more and more internet traffic is being routed around the US these days). The government also made requests to the major telecoms to basically help them spy on their customers. As a result, it's virtually certain that every phone conversation, every email, anything anyone does electronically is being monitored by the government - and we have no way of knowing if that information is being abused, because it's all secret, secret, secret.
There are also programs of "data mining" which amounts to massive electronic profiling of the entire population.
If you're wondering how I've heard about all this, the answer is whistleblowers. People have come forward with information. They are generally punished for doing so, however.
Now, the Democrats in Congress have proven themselves utterly unwilling to take any action to stop this egregious violation of the Constitution. Likewise, the media is far too focused on Sarah Palen and Bristol's bristols (a little English humor for you) to pay any attention to a boring old issue like the conversion of the US into a Big Brother surveillence state.
But some groups, including the ACLU, found a weak point in the conspiracy of silence: the telecommunications companies had broken the law by giving the Bush administration access to electronic communications without a warrant.
So Bush and the Republicans began demanding that the telecoms be given immunity to civil suit by an Act of Congress. The Democrats blocked that one or two times; many "blue dog" (i.e. conservative) Democrats stood with the Republicans, but there were enough progressive politicians to stand it off last year - with the support of an outcry from some of the Democratic "base", liberal activists.
But the Republicans never stop. So telecommunications company amnesty came up again this year. Some Democrats spoke out against it, and Senator Dodd pledged to filibuster it.
Whoops, this is too long; I'll have to split it up here.
Re: Tell me more
During the primaries, Obama pledged to support that filibuster. But after he won the nomination, he not only didn't support the filibuster; he announced well before the vote that while he opposed telecom amnesty, he would vote for the final FISA bill even if it included amnesty. He couldn't have signaled more clearly that he was not going to take a stand (other than with a cynical, flowery bit of oratory) against amnesty.
And the rest of the FISA bill was also absolutely hideous; it took the scrap of figleaf that FISA gave to the right of privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure, and shredded it. Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, so unlike Bush he cannot hide behind the excuse of ignorance. This was a direct violation of his Senatorial oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and in my mind utterly disqualifies him for public office.
What do he and his supporters say about all this? That when he's President, we can trust him to use his dictator-like spying powers responsibly. That overlooks the increasingly high probility that McCain will win the Presidency, of course, and also overlooks the fact that no one should have that sort of power. We threw one King out of this country; now, it seems, we are creating our own God-King, without even the Magna Carta to restrain his power.
Some of his supporters have also evolved a fantasy that mighty President Obama will leap into action as soon as he takes office and put the Justice Department to work investigating and prosecuting the Bush officials who violated the law. This overlooks the fact that 1) Obama has already announced that he will NOT investigate or prosecute during his first (four-year) term), 2) Obama is NOT guaranteed the Presidency, and 3) Bush is virtually certain to issue a blanket preemptive pardon for all crimes to all officials in his administration and to the telecommunications industry as a whole shortly before leaving office. With both civil and criminal action foreclosed, the books will be sealed forever and we, the public, will never know how badly our privacy has been violated - nor what sort of abuses and crimes have been committed with that stolen information.
I should also note (tiredly) that the telecommunications industry donated heavily to many in Congress, some of whom then changed their positions from opposition to support of amnesty. And Obama received a large amount of campaign cash from the telecoms, of course.
no subject
no subject
That reminds me, send me your address so I can send you that DVD!
no subject
Brian Terrill
7214 Stonecrest st.
Stockton, CA 95207