So...are we to really be against censorship, or just censorship that affects works by right-thinking creators? Because it sure seems a point of emphasis here that this work is by a FEMINIST, conveying an approved message ridiculing/attacking/criticizing the patriarchy, (this=rightthink) and therefore the very kind of thing we especially want to protect
Do we really need to appeal to the valorization of victimhood, or apply some "Oppressed Group Membership Scorecard" to work against censorship, when it can be done from first principles and logic?
Why, we just need to vote for a candidate who gives us hope that they'll change things!
Oh hell, I can't really be so partisan...because: If you think the Dems are the good guys in matters like this, you're NOT part of the solution. If you think the answer is to put Republicans in office, you're NOT part of the solution (and a certified moe-ron, to boot).
We have been so sadly and badly misgoverned* for so long that there is no solution that involves either of the duopolistic, crony-kleptocratic parties we now have. *sigh*
*-that's misleading. If the goal were misgovernment, we should have to say it has been achieved very well.
Actually, Snowden was well aware of the fates of some whistleblowers whose unfortunate cases were of recent memory when he was deciding how to proceed. They were attacked, Government service careers ruined, etc., etc.
Look up Thomas Drake's story and see if that wouldn't scare you off even considering "proper channels".
Re: A ruling body that goes after people out of spite...
"...should be making people revolt instead of complacently taking it up the ass."
Amazing, isn't it? How can people be so naive, clueless...stupid?? I mean, they see this happening and instead of concluding the obvious, that it's the party in power, the president in office, and the permanent bureaucracy in DC, it must be a mysterious "someone running things behind the curtain."
Or are you really confused when someone finds it interesting that governments of both proud democracies are comparable in their total lack of commitment to honesty and transparency?? (their clear statements to the contrary notwithstanding)
I don't think it's inappropriate to note, in the context of this story, how Obama's promise to have "the most transparent administration in history" is possibly the farthest-from-honored campaign promise made in my long lifetime.
OTOH, to misrepresent the comment as somehow blaming Obama for the UK govs' actions...that's either the weakest defence of Obama's record ever, or just stupid.
Yes, but they are mistaking congruence for identity.
A=US courts' interest in protecting the economic well-being of high dollar donors to US politicians.
B=US courts' interest in protecting the economic well=being of a rabidly anti-US foreign government.
Safe to say...A /= B. Matter of fact, this level of thinking on the part of the Venezuelan government is consistent with the quality of thought process that would result in a failing currency and economy.
As pointed out above, the new government could hardly be more incompetent or delusional...though democracy kind of ends when the people elect a party that will refuse to peacefully cede power and the citizens of Venezuela may have done that.
All very true, however...the existence of malfeasance on the part of the US govt over the years in South America does NOT preclude the possibility of gross mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy by the Rev Party government. From what I have read over the years, this seems quite plausible.
Indeed, given Chavez' use of hysterical paranoid anti-US rhetoric to gain votes from the Venezuelan equivalent of the Fox News crowd, the ABSENCE of any claim in the complaint makes such machinations even more unlikely.
No, this time, it's pretty much as it appears: The Rev Party tried to sustain itself in power by handouts and government spending that relied on oil revenues with never a concession to the real possibility of price (and revenue) decrease. A government running its' economic policy on wishful thinking, propaganda and censorship doesn't need US meddling to become destabilized.
Sadly, the "all cynical, all the time" stance (as, your post) almost always proves correct.
For those celebrating the FCC vote seemingly for no other reason than that it discomfits corporation and Republicans, I'd ask you to review previous expansions of government power and judge the results (hint: DHS, DEA, NSA, National Zinc, Weasel and Hydrogen Reserve, etc).
I have the uncomfortable feeling these are the same folks who, while proclaiming to champion reason, logic and fact, disregarded all precedent and historical fact in committing to the absolute belief that Obama was that rara avis, the "honest Chicago politician".
Not saying Obama's really worse than any other politician in regard to lying, misleading, flowery, obscurantist pronouncements. Just pointing out that he has PROVEN to be no exception to our well-founded doubts about the veracity of politicians in general.
Lotta comments, and good ones. I doubt this is a sudden epidemic of LEO abuse of citizens, rather an artifact of near-universal reporting.
One thing I notice not one single person has said anything about is how police operate in full knowledge that their union (like, sadly, other unions) will back them up 100%, to the point of fighting for their continued employment no matter the facts of a case.
And don't EVEN go the "That's what unions are supposed to do!" route. Really? Support cops who murder citizens, who throw flash-bang grenades in a baby's crib, who terrify and abuse people who are not charged with any crime?? REALLY?
Fuck that. I know that's what police unions do, and it's a huge factor in the us-vs-them mentality of LEOs and their expectation that they can get away with anything. And, of course, since nobody even dares to bring it up, who's to say they're wrong?
The "Grand Narrative" to which all right-thinking people are expected to adhere says "Unions=good", but come the fuck on...with regard to cops, the union /= good.