that sounds like a cell phone company. who the fuck named this shit?
but in all seriousness, shit like this is why we all have to bite the fucking bullet and vote for Obama. Issues like this and others relating to the intersection of privacy and technology are going to be heavily litigated in the next ten years, and who the next president is will be the de facto deciding factor in how those cases go, since he or she will probably get at least two Supreme Court appointments.
For all his faults, of which there are many, Obama’s court picks have been solid. Sotomayor has been solid and Kagen, while iffy, is at worst a moderate. But at the top of the short list for the next appointment is a blazing liberal jurist from California, who the GOP specifically blocked from getting a high federal court appointment so that it would damage his credentials for the next Supreme Court round. Jerry Brown made that moot by giving the guy a high court appointment (appellate, I believe) in California so now he’s got the chops to be a contender.
What’s at stake here:
- The acceptable scope of facial recognition
- Is a warrant needed to access facebook data
- Can the police download the contents of your cellphone without a warrant
- Geo tracking (this one might hit the SCOTUS before its make up changes)
- And, on a non-electronic but still huge issue: corporate person-hood.
See, Citizens United was predicated on the idea of corporate person-hood, but it didn’t actually get into the question of whether the elevation of a corporation to legal personhood. It went with a much earlier ruling that many legal scholars consider deeply flawed. Sotomayor (and this is one of the reasons I really like her) actually did ask questions trying to pry at this notion, but it just didn’t go anywhere. Put another liberal or two on to the court, and find a novel case in which the issue of corporate personhood is front and center, and it’s up for grabs.
And that, is fucking huge.
Seriously. I know he hasn’t been as good as he could have been, but for fuck’s sake… vote for Obama in 2012. I don’t care what kind of anti-government, anti-system stuff you’re into. The fact of the matter is that if someone like Romney or Paul get elected in 2012, those systems you hate are going to get a hell of a lot worse. And the system is not, not, not, not, absolutely not going to get overthrown just because we have one more terrible president. Saying or thinking that is completely ignorant and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the very systems you may seek to overthrow. If the system gets bad enough that police can basically do whatever the hell they want with our technologies, you can kiss potential future revolutions goodbye. People voting for third parties or choosing not to vote is what put Bush in office in 2008, and things sure didn’t get any better because of that.
I was fine until the bolded part - annoyed, because I intensely dislike the judgmental vote-shaming that goes around if you aren’t willing to continue to support a candidate whose support for you has been lukewarm *at best* and outright hostile at worst, but only in a grinding-my-teeth-slightly sort of way.
And then I read this: “People voting for third parties or choosing not to vote is what put Bush in office in 2008, and things sure didn’t get any better because of that.”
What. The. Fuck. (Also you do realize you’ve got the wrong year there, yeah? Obama was elected in 2008. You’re thinking of 2004.)
Don’t you fucking DARE blame people who voted their conscience (yes, not voting can be an act of conscience, if you cannot in good conscience support any of the available candidates) for the Dems losing the election. Fuck that noise up, down, and sideways. Bush’s election is the fucking fault of the people who fucking voted for him, period, the end. And the fact that some progressives chose to vote third party or not at all is the fault of the Dems for failing to appeal strongly enough and motivate their base - oh, look, exactly what Obama’s having trouble with. (It’s hard to motivate your base when you’re busy playing “both sides are just as bad”, hippie-punching those who would have been your most ardent supporters, and trying for the nth time to “compromise” with those who have made it clear their sole priority for as long as they are in power is to fuck you over completely.)
When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility. No one is obliged or required to offer support to someone who only nominally “supports” them, and it is absolutely unacceptable to try to guilt them into it “because hey the other guy is worse”.
We all have different thresholds for feeling that point of division, so there will be people who share similar politics and yet one will still be supporting Obama and the other won’t be able to bring themself to - AND THAT’S OKAY. And if the Democrats are really concerned about that, they need to step up their fucking game and earn our votes back.
Of course, they won’t bother, because they don’t have to - they can rely on this kind of shitty framing of guilt and blame to try to browbeat and guilt us into voting along the party line anyway, for fear of being blamed for the party’s losses because we had the unmitigated gall to set a price on our votes.
If politicians and parties want our votes, they need to fucking earn them. That’s how the system is supposed to work. And I’m sick of being scapegoated because I refuse to be scared into compliance and instead insist on voting FOR someone or something, instead of AGAINST the other side.
The funny thing is, for all my anger here, I’m not entirely decided on how I will vote next year. I may yet be scared into compliance, I don’t know. But I do know that I won’t stand for this scapegoating shit, no matter whether I’m one of the ones targeted by it or not.
/rant. Carry on, then.
Agreeing with jadelyn’s rant 100%. The fact that Homeland Security under Obama has been indistinguishable to me from under Bush does not make me have any confidence about him on this issue.