Having no particular place to go, I stopped in Central Square yesterday to talk to a "Want to help elect Obama?" guy; I think his name was Greg. It went something like this:
The Conversation
Me: Are you with the campaign, or just a signature-gathering company?
Greg: The campaign!
Me: Good, so you can feed opinions back to the campaign. I have two words: Telecom Immunity.
Greg: What's that?
Me (a bit surprised): Well, the executive branch told the phone companies to spy on us, and they did, based solely on his say-so. Now there's a law that will grant them immunity, and Obama promised he'd support a filibuster. Instead, he's not only changed his mind, not only publicly supported the law, but claims that he hasn't flip-flopped. He's lying to us.
Greg: I haven't heard about this. But... does it really affect you personally?
Me: Well, yes. I use the Internet, I work in technology, I care about privacy. Do you want someone spying on your phone calls?
Greg: Well, I think some balance of national security is important. I'm not doing anything wrong, so it doesn't worry me.
Me: What if someone decides that what you're doing is wrong?
Greg:
Me: There's absolutely no "balance" to it. The executive branch has decided that the executive branch can decide what's enough to get you declared an enemy combatant. The only way we can even find out what happened is through Congress, and this law prevents that. It claims to give the decision to the courts. But what it actually says is this: The phone companies are off the hook if they prove to the court that they got a letter from the President. They don't have to prove it was legal, they don't have to prove that they tried to find out. They have to prove that they got a letter.
Greg: ... Well, and that's why it's important that we elect Obama!
Me: Yes, and we have a few months till the election. Perhaps Obama could at least wait until then before he breaks his promises. He seems to have forgotten that he won the nomination for a reason. Maybe you can remind him.
The Shock
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We can't elect Obama just because we think he'll be better behaved. We're a nation of laws, not men. And even John Adams, who first said that, also brought us the Alien and Sedition act. We cannot accept "trust me" as a substitute for oversight.
And yet, although a group for fighting telecom immunity has, in a few weeks, become the single largest group on Obama's web site, a guy who's devoted his time to being the public face of Obama's campaign hasn't even heard of it. That's dispiriting.
Privacy: Not Just For Criminals
Maybe next time, I'll remember my favorite rejoinder to "I have nothing to hide":
Me: Do you have any secret medical conditions that would be made obvious just by looking at you? Or any weapons or illegal drugs on you?
Person: No, of course not.
Me: So physically, you have nothing to hide?
Person: Well, no.
Me: OK. Strip.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
That last part sounds like
By anon
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 1:48pm
That last part sounds like it was ripped from a Bill O'Reilly book when he is trying to engage in literary foreplay
FISA and Sen Obama
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 12:57pm
I joined that group on myobama too. I'm glad Feingold and Dodd with the help of Reid were able to postpone the vote on the new legislation. i hope folks are giving their senators an earful on this over the July 4 break.
Our senators in MA are on the right side. Kerry will vote against. Kennedy has been convalescing and as a result is missing votes but we're not even close yet.
www.emptywheel.firedoglake.com published a list of senators whose votes will be necessary to approve some of the amendments sponsored by Feingold, Dodd and others.
Obama gave us all a wake up call with his announcement about supporting this bill. Then he decided faith-based initiatives - tax dollar allocations for religious friends of the president - would be part of his administration. His run to the middle is turning my stomach.
Hunters don't kill innocent animals!
By anon
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 2:29pm
Person A:"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
Person B:"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"
"Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice."
"But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstacles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known."
"They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says 'why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?' Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something."
The Democratic turn-around
By Gary McGath
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 9:12am
Now that Obama is the favored candidate, Democrats are no longer interested in fighting presidential abuse of power. The Washington Post ran an editorial that reads as if it was written by Bush's staff, saying we have to let telecoms break the law or they'll refuse to cooperate with future investigations. That's extortion, and it's all the more reason to make them subject to the full extent of the law.
So now the Obama shills are saying that if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't care about your privacy. No surprise. That's what they were saying when they were Bill Clinton shills. (Anyone remember the Clipper Chip?)
not like buying a car, it's like building one
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 1:01pm
You are one of millions of Americans who feel the same way and want a different kind of politics. It's not like buying a car, it's like building a better one. Keep going to work. It'll be worth it.
Worst. Candidate. Ever.
By anon
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 1:24pm
Oh well, once again, the Democratic Party steps in it and picks the WORST candidate, so desperate are they to "prove" that they're "inclusive." Why the hell didn't they get it all over at once, and find a hispano-african lesbian with some decent foreign policy credentials instead? Anything's better than a guy who has no real experience--being a Senator for less than two years, coming from a PART-TIME job in the Illinois legislature, is NOT confidence inspiring. We wouldn't dismiss that lack of experience ordinarily, but it's TABOO to say anything, because if you do, you end up in Ferraroland....even if you're tanned like Tiger.
And everyone's gonna whine come November and say "Ewwwww, it was STOLEN" when McCain The Geezerly, another real "prize" of a candidate, wipes the floor with that flip flopping, inexperienced, pandering schmuck who inspires glazed eyes and unthinking devotion in the Under 30 set.
Not only is FISA suddenly unimportant, now we learn he's going to continue shovelling money to Faith Based groups, many of whom are in DIRE need of a little "accounting," shall we say.
Next thing you know he'll be cheerleading for a continuation of NCLB.....
I think he sucks as a candidate, so I guess I'll just vote "Present." After all, that's how he handled an impossible choice or dozens, so I will simply follow his "inexperienced" lead.
We only do this every four years...you'd think we'd come up with some decent choices every once in a while. Why is that so hard?
Keep bitching or do something about it
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/04/2008 - 1:32pm
By which you mean the people, like yourself, who voted in the democratic primaries and caucuses. My reason for voting is not what you state but quite different. I can't imagine how you think you could know the reasons other citizens made their choice, in what was most-ever votes cast for a democratic candidate in the history of primaries.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your disaffection and can only say: Keep bitching or do something about it.
my.barackobama
By anon
Sat, 07/05/2008 - 12:19pm
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rosp...