I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.
I voted or and contibuted to Obama because I felt he would fight for public schools and against nationwide voucher programs, and because he supported meaningful health care reform.
I had absolutely zero expectation that Obama would waste political capital revamping CBP.
The TSA is a far bigger problem for ordinary Americans than CBP is, and a more constitutionally offensive one. I think we can all quickly agree that electronic strip searches of all American citizens are an affront to the word "reasonable".
And yet it never crossed my mind not to vote for Obama because his DHS supported the TSA. Why? Because something like 70% of Americans support the TSA, and, simultaneously, game theory more or less demands that any administration support all counterterrorism measures. There was no possibility that any winning candidate was going to eliminate the TSA. The problem wasn't Obama or Romney; it's the American people.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
I thought at the time and still wonder whether it must be wrong. It defines the entire shore of Lake Michigan as a border -- as drawn.
If that is indeed the case, it extends CBP authority over Chicago and the Chicagoland area (and Milwaukee, for that matter).
It's a bit stunning to consider all the major cities and population areas this applies to. That's a big chunk of the U.S.'s population and economic activity, where "the 4th Amendment can go hang".
This is undoubtedly a simplistic interpretation. Nonetheless, when I add the electronics searches to the license plate scanners (also a CBP initiative, for example in areas throughout upstate New York), the TSA moving into train and bus stations and vehicles, and sports venues, and...
It seems we are ever more at the mercy of policy and government self-restraint, rather than the protection of law, with regard to rights and freedoms many of us (although certainly not all, such as some "ethnic minorities" depending upon definition and timeframe) have long more or less taken for granted.
Neat trick, that: Using CBP to backdoor the Fourth Amendment.
Are they doing it? Probably in at least minimal fashion. How much, and under what cases? A lot of that seems to remain a "secret" that they "dare not divulge". Given recent history, I'm not optimistic about where this goes in the future.
P.S. I'm too tired to work it into what I've said in a better fashion, but, "Oh, also, domestic drones!"
Do you happen to recall (I don't know) how it ended up before SCOTUS? (I'm assuming that someone was therefore pushing for that interpretation. And I wonder, to what end -- or what they expressed as their need and reasoning.)
P.S. Rereading, I'm a bit worried, so let me clarify in case the above reads wrong or so: I didn't intend any snark. Honest thanks and follow-up question.
Also, I guess I should enable and read through the Wired comments for that article, in case they address this.
P.P.S. Looking further, myself, the map in question appears to have originated with the ACLU. It's mentioned in a couple of their articles/posts on or around 10/22/2008.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-sec...
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con...
However, it also appears to be cited as an "interactive map" back on December 15, 2006.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...
I haven't found their explanation for including and ranging out from the shore of Lake Michigan.
This Slashdot article, for lack of anything better that I've found so far, provides various and differing explanations, or opinions, for the source and nature of the definition of this zone.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/02/09/0054212/dhs-can-seize...
Amongst other things, this Wikipedia article is mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
I've about reached the limit of what I can search/read/skim, for tonight.
I'm as much Fuck the Man as the next person, but let's try to dig a bit deeper.
The idea that that could be the least-bad strategy is pretty depressing, but I guess it's not impossible.
The only move, at that point, is to emigrate to somewhere without the authority to imprison you forever without trial, somewhere the phones aren't tapped.
It's not easy, but it is necessary.
If you don't vote, that's just a smaller pool that each side will get approximately half of, and you've voted for a candidate that can't win: nobody. You haven't affected anything (not that you are required to affect anything).
If you vote for a third party, that's still someone that probably can't win, but you've moved the needle a bit away from the other two.
Education needs major disruption, which we're beginning to see from some startups, but why would anyone fight for the embarrassment called public education?
At my public high school you could take classes in small engines, CAD, graphic design, business bookkeeping and general accounting, computer programming, welding and so forth. There was even a class where students would build an entire house and then auction it off. As far as I remember, nearly every other high school in the area had similar programs.
The reason my comment was relevant to the thread was that it was asserted elsewhere that Obama supporters were intellectually inconsistent for doing so despite Obama's manifest refusal to dial back Homeland Security.
Such entities likely cannot change course even in the length of a full presidential term. They configure and operate themselves for self preservation and growth of scope and power, with deep defense mechanisms against political whims.
They are often incompetent at their charter, while obscenely effective at self aggrandizement.
Right, he said he won't use it, so lets not worry! Good thing the courts have currently put the brakes on it!
I voted for Ron Paul last election (primary) and Gary Johnson in the final election, not because I agree with his (Ron Paul's) religious sentiments, or even his economic ideas. I had to vote for him because he was the only viable candidate that would guarantee our civil liberties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_...
>A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[62] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for __detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S.__ on “suspicion of providing substantial support to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[62]
Put differently: the opposition party in Congress at the time the 2012 NDAA was proposed was lobbying for a much broader capability. The administration had to spend political capital to limit the degrees of freedom they had.
The problem with two parties is that they collect votes based on ideology not actions. Technically three isn't enough to avoid this but in general use it implies many third parties, such that governing is no longer one painful voice pushed on everyone, but a consensus of the governed.
Ron Paul made it pretty clear during nearly its entire life that he was for less state and more individual liberties.
That makes me think that things would have been way different should he have been elected president.
The ones that did not have good marketing where those that lost to them in the election.
Most liberals I know just shrug. It's why the far left has so much contempt for liberals in general.
Every time I criticize Obama, I have to go out of my way to qualify that I'm _not_ a Republican, either.
When I say 'liberal,' I personally generally mean 'neoliberal,' which has a pretty large overlap with the Democratic party and the popular conception of 'liberal.'
Amazingly there is a middle ground. Yes, Obama is taking after Bush in scary ways. It makes me sick and it's why I voted third party in the re-election. That having been said, it's terribly reductionist to say that "Romney and Obama are the same" and anyone who is a woman or gay will almost surely agree with me.
>I have to wonder what happens when those Obama supporters with left-wing sentiments read an article like this.
We're pissed off and still terrified at how much worse it would be with Romney. Or, we, like you, wish that third party candidates were viable, that people would be educated enough that it would MATTER that people like Gary Johnson exist, etc.
Only because politicians pander to their perceived voting blocks. Is there any evidence, out side of statements made during the campaign, that Romney actually holds views towards gays and women that are substantially different than Obama's?
As governor, Romney spoke out against same-sex marriage and tied to get an amendment passed to ban same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
It sounds like he supported equal rights and benefits but opposed the use of the term "marriage" being applied to gay couples. Still seems like a superficial difference to me.
The amount of damage another Alito or Scalia would have done to the rights of women and sexual minorities by itself blows the idea that their difference was just "superficial" out of the water.
Hm...the damage done to minorities...
Barack Obama ramped up a US government program that has devastated African American communities across America. The War on Drugs has had a vastly disproportionate effect on black people in America, and the Obama administration is a big fan (as part of a deal to bring pharmaceutical companies on board with the healthcare bill).
So while you sit there terrified that one group of right-wing politicians might push against gay marriage or try to repeal Row v. Wade, you seem to have failed to notice that behind the curtain there is another minority that is hard-hit by the administration's right-wing approach and its ties to powerful industries.
These judges and legislation would, of course, be substantially different from those resulting from an Obama Administration.
Is there some reason to believe that? Obama kept or accelerated a large number of rights-killing policies from the Bush administration...
But yes, Romney signed the NOM pledge, funded NOM heavily, said that same-sex hospital visitation rights was a "privilege" and needed no guarantee or legal backing, and was against ENDA; additionally, Paul Ryan voted against the DADT repeal and against the Matthew Shepard act and said something along the lines of "LGBT issues don't matter".
edit, for what it's worth, I think you're right in many ways and I'm sorry to see you downvoted. Romney's record was vastly different before he became a GOP puppet, particularly in MA and him having expressed interest years ago in progressing gay rights. Unfortunately, I also liked McCain before he (was) turned in a GOP prick as well.
Take the example of the "mandatory insurance provided birth-control" issue that arose during the election. That's like a $9 per month benefit so if you voted for or against someone because of that and ignored things like heinous civil liberties policies you would essentially be saying you could be bought off for 9 bucks a month. That seems insane to me.
edit: point being that the common reason for not voting for the third party candidate is fear that the other guy wins. I'm suggesting that that's a stupid reason if the difference is $9 + campaign rhetoric.
edit: This article sites generics as costing $9 per month http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/real-cost-birth...
I'm kinda flabbergasted. I genuinely believe that Romney/Paul would have been a significant setback for LGBT rights in America. At the same time, I can point to numerous things that were accomplished in the Obama administration that have made my life better. I agree that voting defensively is not the best, but I certainly understand why people do it to protect their self interests.
Also, ironically, that article points out that contraception often costs far more than $9, implies that many of the low-cost alternatives are provided by organizations that Romney and Paul both expressed interest in defunding, or via insurance that the most-in-need-of-family-planning have no access to, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans#Log_Cabin...
The Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Sam...
even suggests he supported equal rights and benefits for LGBT couples as a governor though he apposed the use of the word "marriage" to describe said couples.
It seems like few people actually bother to look up a politicians actions and instead just take other politicians and partisans word for it when it comes to the "radical" positions of their opponents. I'd attribute the progress more to the changing attitudes of the country as a whole than the election of any one person.
On the other hand, when I looked at Obama's actions as president...well, I just could not bring myself to vote for him. To push the beloved healthcare bill through (remember, the bill that failed the deliver the one thing everyone really wanted, the public option?), he promised the pharmaceutical industry a stronger crackdown on illegal drugs, and he absolutely followed through on that promises: more paramilitary raids on medical marijuana facilities during just his first two years in office than in all eight Bush years combined. The administration's push for strong copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret laws and trade agreements seem to have been equally motivated by ties to industry. His approach to reforming the student loan system was to focus on interest rates and offer indentured servitude for people who cannot repay their loans.
What candidates say during an election is worthless, even when they pledge to do something. Politicians lie to get votes. Look to their actions, not their words, and look to their ties to industry (at least if you are voting for a major party, which amounts to choosing which set of businesses will get special treatment by the government).
I'm not sure what you're advocating I suppose. I don't think people said that the $9 a month was important to them (I kinda doubt that figure for people w/o insurance but I don't know) but were instead saying "I'm not going to vote for some rich white dude that wants to tell me what I can do with my vagina".
Fortunately for us, there are real journalists who see through the thin veil of Republican & Democrat propaganda. Like the specific and unnamed NYTimes columnist who regurgitates lobbyist talking points almost line for line, many "journalists" and political commentators simply regurgitate the bullshit that is being feed to them. What is embarrassing is that the segment of the population that counts as educated are the ones gobbling it up.
Change will happen through radical transparency. Imagine watching a debate interrupted any time a candidates says something false. Or perhaps a Presidential address rebuffed on demand with clips of things that individual said while campaigning that directly opposed what they are saying now. Accountability does not have to be an option or a convenience.