In light of the recent news that the Bush administration wants to snoop through our Google records, Tom Tomorrow has come up with a choice little piece of snark: he entered the text of the Fourth Amendment into his Google search engine. I liked this notion enough to do it myself, both on my home computer and at work. It's tiny, it's trivial, but I enjoy the tiny, trivial giggle that I get from fantasizing about how seeing the text of the Constitution will cause Bush and his cronies to burst into flames like vampires in direct sunlight.
In case anybody else would like to contribute their own bit of snark to Bush's data set, here's the handy-dandy text for you to cut and past into your search window:
- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
12 Comments:
It's nice to see Google take this risk for a noble cause. And make no mistake, this is a substantial risk. If the wrong people pay attention, the wacko Christian-right could call for a boycott of Google that could cost the company a ton of money (and it already has sent their stock way down). I just believe that the Fourth Amendment is under attack right now and I'm glad to see some companies think it's a battle worth fighting.
CF
Meh. The Christian Right showed their asses with Ford, and they got their asses handed right back to them. People are growing rapidly disgusted with the religious fundamentalists, and are increasingly willing to tell those nut jobs to go fuck themselves with their neon Jeebus. I, for one, would welcome yet another misguided effort by the Talibangelists...their idiocy is like free advertising for secularism.
The real attack on the 4th Amendment is coming from the ruling administration and its corporate neoimperialism. In my opinion, CF, your support of the Bush administration constitutes a forfeit of any right you might have had to bitch about your 4th Amendment rights. You are getting exactly what you voted for.
While I think google is standing on their rights proudly, and I support that, they are not doing it for pure principal. Google has a top-of-the-market product, and just giving the internals of it over to anyone is a very scary proposition for them. I have a feeling that trade secret is more of a motivation to them than is pure civil liberty. But since civil liberty helps them fight that battle (and gain some public support in the process) its a win-win.
ZDK,
This is my fault. I wish I could disagree with that. If I would have known that the Bush administration would get all tyrannical on my ass things could have been different. Frankly, I've always considered the Fourth Amendment a Republican issue. Maybe that's just because I'm a Republican so I hoped they agreed with me, I don't know. All I know is that I believed the number one stance of the GOP was always "Get the government off of my ass." That means lower taxes, fewer limits on the rights of individuals and corporations, and a smaller government. What has Bush given us? MORE limits on individual and corporate rights and BIGGER (much bigger) government.
So, I shouldn't complain? Respectfully, I disagree. Here's why: My party is in power. If anything is going to happen, guess who has to do it? That's right, Republicans. If people who are Democrats make noise and convince the elected officials they support to do something about it, what happens? Barbara Boxer can go on CNN and whine. Ted Kennedy can get on the Senate floor when the CSPAN TV's are rolling and pound the podium. Then what? They wait to see if Republicans will do anything. If people who are Republicans make noise and convince the elected officials they support to do something about it, what happens? Laws get passed. Shit gets done. Look at the torture bill that passed. Democrats bitched for a year and nothing happened. Republicans bitched and a law was passed. Face it, the GOP is running the show. You non-Republicans should complain because it might bring exposure (as it did with the torture thing). I should complain because, if there are enough of me, something will happen. And the only way to ensure nothing will happen about the situation is to make sure no Republicans complain. But, I understand why my complaining would irritate you because the problem is my fault.
CF
Author, I'm leaving for Maryland in the morning. I'll call you when I'm likely to be around DC.
CF,
Since you do realize that Republicans are in power, why did you demand that I provide a "source" showing that Democrats had outlawed wiretapping, since you apparently agree with Bush that laws passed when the Democrats were in power (specifically FISA) don't count? Did you want a source dating only from periods when the Democrats had no power to pass laws? What were you looking for that a source on FISA outlawing wiretapping of Americans without warrents didn't satisfy? I'll admit I'm confused about what you were demanding of me.
Also, what reasons did Bush ever show that would lead anyone to think, in 2000, 2002 or 2004 that he was interested in (as a matter of policy, not just "talking points") preserving rights or containing government? Certainly "Get the government off of my ass" is probably the number one talking point of the GOP, so maybe I'm just misreading your use of the word "stance".
Finally, and I will try to find time and internet access to read your response to this because I remember our previous discussion on the matter and I'm curious, what "torture thing"? Simply the law, or do you now believe there was more of a problem then the much talked of "bad apples" on a night shift in Abu Graib?
As for there being enough people like you, isn't that why Bush and his allies control all branches of government? How effective do you think to "complain" is for motivating officials you vote for with 100% consistency anyway? So I don't think Author is being unreasonable. Give it some thought.
Completely off topic, but this seems to be right up ZDK's alley:
http://koaloha.livejournal.com/29646.html
Aleks,
I'll be happy to discuss the conversations we've had in other threads in those threads.
As for this, "How effective do you think to "complain" is for motivating officials you vote for with 100% consistency anyway?"
Very effective. If you aren't going to vote for them anyway, why should they listen? If you are likely to vote for them, they want to keep you happy, involved, and motivated to go to the polls. Have you ever heard people talk about a President trying to appeal to his base? Why is that? Because he gets his power and his money from his base. All that said, I don't vote for any party with 100% consistency, and I'm not going to debate that fact now because it is not relevant to the discussion.
CF
Author,
I was at Anne W's tonight and her mom said she works out with your mom and she's looking great.
Slushpup,
I hadn't thought of it like that. Kind of scary if the incentives or their appraisel of them change. I wonder how much Google management lives up to their media image as idealistic geeks, and how much of that is clever corporate hype and spin.
CF
==I'll be happy to discuss the conversations we've had in other threads in those threads.==
Ok, but it was on this thread that you expressed understanding of the fact that Democrats are not in a position to pass laws, is that incorrect?
==Very effective. If you aren't going to vote for them anyway, why should they listen? If you are likely to vote for them, they want to keep you happy, involved, and motivated to go to the polls. Have you ever heard people talk about a President trying to appeal to his base? Why is that? Because he gets his power and his money from his base.==
Since I'm the one of us who has voted for national candidates of both parties, I'm not sure where you're coming from with "If you aren't going to vote for them anyway, why should they listen?" But don't you see the converse? If you are going to vote for them anyway, can you explain why you think they should listen?
==All that said, I don't vote for any party with 100% consistency, and I'm not going to debate that fact now because it is not relevant to the discussion.==
I didn't say you voted for "any party with 100% consistency", so I don't know what "debate" is available. My point is that since you do indeed vote for national Republican candidates with 100% consistency, I don't think they're terrified of losing the support of 'people like you'. Since that is exactly what you were talking about, I don't understand your position that it is not relevant. Or am I mistaken on the facts of the matter? Have you ever voted for a candidate for national office who was not a Republican? What office and year?
Would you respond to my question? It was a serious one, and it seems relevant to your statement: What reasons did Bush ever show that would lead anyone to think, in 2000, 2002 or 2004 that he was interested in (as a matter of policy, not just "talking points") preserving rights or containing government? What do you consider unreasonable about that question? Also, what do you consider the status of the "torture thing"? You've said that you are an intelligent and independent-minded person being treated unfairly on this site because of your "differing opinion", so why not take the chance to set the record straight and justify that opinion?
"If you are going to vote for them anyway, can you explain why you think they should listen?"
Yes: If you are likely to vote for them, they want you to vote. They listen to you to find out what will keep you happy, involved, and motivated to go to the polls. Politicians try to "appeal to their base" to gain the money and votes they need to stay in power.
My reasons for voting for Bush in previous elections are not relevant to the point I'm trying to make here.
So you're not willing to offer any reason beyond an inability to question talking points for having believed that Bush wanted to "Get the government off of my ass" despite voting for him and his allies in Congress with 100% consistency in every election. Why not? Didn't you say you liked facts and arguments?
Aleks,
My reasons for voting for Bush are not relevant to this discussion. You are trying to change the subject. You asked, "If you are going to vote for them anyway, can you explain why you think they should listen?" I answered:
"Yes: If you are likely to vote for them, they want you to vote. They listen to you to find out what will keep you happy, involved, and motivated to go to the polls. Politicians try to "appeal to their base" to gain the money and votes they need to stay in power."
Are you going to counter my argument or cede my point that politicians frequently do what members of their base ask them to do?
Not when your support is not at stake. You ask "you aren't going to vote for them anyway, why should they listen?", as if I weren't a former Republican whose support was lost by your ilk's bad behavior. Why won't you explain why Bush should listen to you when you've voted with 100% consistency for him and his congressional allies, his and their behavior not factoring in? I answered your 'point', why aren't you "man" enough to answer it yourself?
==My reasons for voting for Bush are not relevant to this discussion==
And you tell yourself you're honest and intelligent and like facts. You said "Frankly, I've always considered the Fourth Amendment a Republican issue. Maybe that's just because I'm a Republican so I hoped they agreed with me, I don't know. All I know is that I believed the number one stance of the GOP was always "Get the government off of my ass." That means lower taxes, fewer limits on the rights of individuals and corporations, and a smaller government."
All I'm asking is for you to justify having believed those, since you lecture about not being a "sheep", about not succumbing to "blind trust" and "talking points", etc. etc. If it's " not relevant ", then why did you bring it up? Are there ways in which you are not a coward?
Post a Comment
<< Home